It's not a "ban"; from what's described it's a disclosure requirement. It has always been required to have these in the rental agreements - but you have to publicize them so people see them before they pay an application fee.
It's not that onerous of legislation, but it also feels a bit gimmicky. I have never once had a problem getting the information when asked. And places that provide free utilities or pets already advertise themselves heavily as such - this would really only benefit extreme novices in the market
Seattle's push to add additional regulation, compliance, fees and inspections has resulted in an exodus of small landlords, which are down anywhere from 19% to 22% in four years depending on how you slice it, and an explosion in large landlords which are up 77% in the same period.
The city has basically consolidated the rental market so it works best for large corporations. Was that the intent?
Small landlords don't own apartment buildings. They buy houses to rent, lowering availability for buyers. So, you'd at least want to look at the number of new apartment rentals available plus the number of first time house buyers to get a better picture.
Small landlords also rent out basement suites and carriage homes on their own property, no? Those may very well sit empty if the return isn’t worth the risk.
Editing to just add: I absolutely support transparent pricing for rental properties.
Can you cite what laws you are talking about. The one being discussed here does not seem to target small landlords, but big predatory ones. There aren't any additional fees or inspections and compliance is as simple as only charging one amount for rent and not tacking on additional fees.
My experience when renting in Seattle a decade ago was that it wasn't particularly hard to find a place, and that the only places that dealt in these bullshit fees were the big corporate landlords.
I think this might help small landlords out a bit. Big corporate landlords can easily add nonsense fees to make the rent look low. Small landlords wouldn't bother charging you to use your own mailbox and usually don't have common areas to charge you for access to. With things made transparent, the small landlords can simply offer a price, and be on a more level playing field.
Seattle should do restaurants next, the number of places with %fees tacked on that aren't tips and aren't optional, just so they don't end up having $20+ entrees on the menu is growing steadily.
It's amazing how people neglect this basic fact. Free markets already often don't work in practice. But they don't even work in theory if both parties do not have at the very least the same information in order to base their decisions. These sort of scam tactics (like dynamic pricing) are simply fraud, much like hiding problems in a car or a house you sell.
On one side, I fully understand that. On the other side, if this really reflects the cost of compliance, maybe this is the only way to signal the voter that the "there ought to be a law" approach has some downsides to it.
How would you like it if you rented a VM from AWS, and in the bill they added fees for employee health insurance, social security and medicare? That's a cost of compliance too!
Solution: you may put it on the receipt, but the price you advertise must be final all-in. Gas stations manage it just fine. Advertised price is what you pay, but receipt shows the taxes
You can ban business from passing on their costs to their customers.
Australia just tried this by banning businesses from charging a card use surcharge.
You really reckon business aren’t going to then just wrap the cost of card service / merchant fees in to every product, thereby hurting those who pay with cash?
Hint: that’s exactly what businesses are doing. I know because I asked them.
Maybe stop voting for politicians who believe they can tax and regulate an economy to growth and productivity.
A fee for a specific service (ie using a card vs using cash) is pretty different from unavoidable junk fees. As long as a fee like that is advertised up-front it's totally fine; but fees that everybody has to pay are a qualitatively different thing because they are just a way to get a misleadingly low sticker price for the product.
In the US we were well on the way to substantial national bans on these types of junk fees under the Biden administration's CFPB, Khan's FTC, etc and then Trump reversed everything a few months into his current term.
Being ripped off by large corporations at every transaction is what "owning the libs" looks like for your life in practice, but hey at least you can say slurs on twitter now!
I wonder if there's any (transparently self-serving) pushback against this on Seattle Nextdoor or the like. It sounds like a straightforward set of rules that's great for everyone... but I've learned that this is never enough, and I'm sure there are some people insisting that this is some massive crime against landlords and, by extension, tenants.
We need a national law and FTC teeth to say "The price advertised is the final, final, all-in price you pay" and the right to demand the product be delivered at that price if you were advertised a price. This should include limits on dynamic pricing which "whoops the price changed for the worse between when we showed it to you and when you drove to the store..."
As an example related to Renting. I once saw a place advertised for rent at a price in my budget. Booked a showing the next day. The dynamic pricing increased it several hundred dollars above my budget. The land lord (company) would not honor the price I booked my showing at. I immediately left saying I do not do business with such dishonest practices.
We also need to ban using the renters as a captured audience for products.
Edit to add:
When I last rented from a big corp I got:
$5 a month semi-mandatory fee on automated payments through their app (as if them handling a check would actually cost them less than an automated payment)
Mandatory internet package through a single provider.
"Resort fee" of $30 a month which was more than the cost of a proximal gym providing 10x the equipment.
Move in charge - $50 just to move in as if I was going to rent but not move in?
Move out charge - $50 just to move out as if I was going to not move out when my lease ended?
I also think rent raises after a year's lease should be limited . Why is the 13th month 100% more as if I'm not a long term renter? It makes some sense for short term rentals but this isnt a 1 month rental, it's a 1 month extension to a long term rent.
There's nothing more American than not knowing the price you're going to pay for something until you have to pay it. This applies to everything from income taxes to health care to big ticket purchases like homes and cars, to airline tickets, to cell phone and cable service, all the way down to restaurants with tips and service fees and everything on the store shelf, where sales tax is not included in the price of the good. Somehow the USA has normalized this throughout its entire culture.
This isn't about math being too hard. It's about companies deliberately hiding and obfuscating what you owe.
Try this. My cell phone service is AT&T's "Value Plus VL" service with three lines. Tell me my exact monthly bill down to the cent. Do all the Internet searching you need and all the math you need to.
In a world where companies weren't actively hiding what you pay, you would easily be able to do this.
It reminds me of my first time in Europe as an American. You go to a cafe, look at the prices, and know exactly how much money you are going to be handing them. It felt like magic because I couldn't remember the last time I paid just the advertised price on anything.
Now, unfortunately in places like the UK, tips are becoming more frequent as well as a discretionary 12.5% service charge at restaurants. And everything online has a convenience fee.
I wish governments would get serious about price transparency. The solution is quite simple, but I fear that with algorithmic pricing things are going to be getting much worse in the short term.
I don't have any hope for broad legislation that affects all businesses. Americans are so used to + tax + tips + convenience fees that doing anything else would hurt at both ends: consumers will claim inflation (oh that 8.99+30% burger is now 11.50? Tragedy) and businesses will mourn the loss of scam tactics that lets them earn more.
Retailer here. I would absolutely love all inclusive pricing legislation. Since we're not trying to screw our customers (we're a co-op, so our customers are also our owners), I'd love to be on a fairer playing field with frontline pricing from the businesses trying to lie, cheat, and steal their way to a higher margin.
Until Congressional and Executive branch regime change, you should expect city and state efforts to be more effective in the interim. Focus there until regime change and federal change is possible, as it currently is not possible. Death of junk fees via "death by a thousand cuts." Companies can keep up with federal lobbying, they cannot keep up with cities and states all at once. See: data centers and ALPRs.
> think what the DSA are proposing, a complete overhaul of the Constitution.
Strongly agree, onward, elections keep happening, electorate turnover is continuous (and a likely component of why NYC and Seattle have DSA mayors, and Providence, Rhode Island is about to have one).
Banning junk fees / truth in advertising is good. But I absolutely hate that pet rent was bundled in to this. Pets occasionally cause very high amounts of real damage that should be covered by pet owners, not tenants without pets. And Seattle has banned every other possible avenue of passing this expense only to the parties responsible (higher deposits).
Yes this will absolutely raise rents for everyone in order to cover pet damage costs, which can easily reach thousands, exceeding any profit for the lease term. They are the top cause of rental unit damage.
Many smaller landlords will choose to exclude pets entirely in order to keep rental rates competitive.
(I have worked in housing in Seattle and have seen this first hand. And I love pets, have them myself!)
If you worked in housing in Seattle you would know it's not really legal or practicable for landlords to exclude pets, considering the expansiveness of ESA designations. Almost every landlord already excludes pets outside of ESAs
Yes and the ESA program is unfortunately regularly abused. Without judging tenants, I know multiple people from my personal network who proudly got the ESA designation simply to get around the rule.
There are numerous pet-friendly landlords, but typically the rent is not cheap. Pets have a real cost — they aren’t cheap for the owner, I don’t know why the owner assumes they don’t add cost to their living situation.
The main complaint seems to be that there is not a glut of cheap pet-friendly rentals, which is an unrealistic expectation in Seattle where the housing market is already extremely competitive.
Is there data to show that pets actually cause more damage? I see this argument get thrown around quite frequently (often by landlords), but I don't buy that it's a major issue.
It isn't that every pet causes more damage as a rule, its that very frequently pets do damage that is quite expensive. Urine can require floor and subfloor replacement. I've seen dogs chew through walls, etc. Pets in common areas leaving tracks and fur, etc. I'm a dog lover, but it would be folly to pretend that owning a dog does not cause additional wear and tear on my house.
That said, damage from pets should be handled through the damage deposit. Pet rent is just another way to pad the bill.
I am thinking it might be less about the damages (which the tenants are obliged to pay for anyway) and more about the extra work the property must do to deal with noise complaints, escaped pets, possible legal actions, hassles the maintenance might need to show up for, possible extra hours staff might need to work, pooper scoopering, yellowing grass, etc.
Well, there are plenty of lies. Because tenants are liable for the supposed damages regardless of whether landlords can grab $100/mo or whatever.
That's not to say that pets can cause tons of damage: if someone let's a cat spray inside and doesn't immediately clean it, that can cost tens of thousands if it seeps down to the underlayment. But (1) that ain't getting covered by the $50 - $100 they want to gouge people for; and (2) tenants are liable for that either way.
Typically these claims are completely unrecoverable. The tenants don’t have the money, and the cost of pursuing further is too high. The only way to ensure payment is to get it upfront.
land lords assess and charge for damages, regardless of source
why should pets require a monthly, non refundable fee regardless of damages or not?
My main gripe is my building charges $50 more for EV spots and then wants to charge as much as the charging stations, that's a nope for me, I'll just charge while buying groceries
I would think that if a pet causes a high amount of real damage, the landlord should still be able to seek remuneration for that damage. They just can't charge for it in advance.
It's an insurance premium of sorts. They are statistically much more likely to have a problem, so they adjust they rent to make the deal a positive expected value again.
Urine soaking into a subfloor can easily cost more to repair than the security deposit, and recovering damages in court is hard and expensive in its own right (if the person even has money to take).
Not to mention, even when there's no apparent damage, a pet apartment can require extra cleaning to get rid of odors and dander.
It just makes sense for the landlord to price in a potential headache.
Now we know you have never been a landlord... "Seek it after the fact" works out in ~0% of the time. Best case is you can sell the debt to a collections agency for ten cents on the dollar, and that is after a court case that you are unlikely to win in the first place. This is why security deposits exist. Cause "get it after" rarely works out.
I think in general my preference is the other part of this story: Rather than choosing what fees can and can't be offered, require both brutal price transparency and prohibit advertising the unrealistic/lesser cost.
A friend of mine has recently lamented the idea gas stations can advertise "with car wash" pricing on top with what is "fine print" on the sign, which looks good but isn't when you factor in the cost of the car wash.
Another favorite is the personal loan ad, saying you're preapproved for a loan as low as 6% APR but actually you can be denied and the loan could be up to 36% APR even if you get approved. Nonsense.
I don't have a huge problem with a discount for car washes but the advertisement should be an out the door price or rate. Similarly I don't mind capped or content-restricted data plans, but the advertised price should be the unlimited one.
I don't think we should decide what businesses can sell, but we should make it very hard to mislead on the ad. Force advertisements to be the highest price instead of the lowest price, and you'll find companies finding ways to remove fees from the table themselves.
I think you should check out the kinds of fees they call out as no longer allowed[1]. They include things like: a fee to "perform landlord duties" and a fee to "access your mailbox." I absolutely think it should be illegal for your landlord to hold your mail hostage.
That said, this generally allows optional fees - they just need to be disclosed, have clear opt-in and out, and cannot be profit centers for the landlord.
I mean obviously fees should either be included in the original price, or there should be a reason it might apply in some cases but not others. But I can also see someone just wanting to break out the costs as separate line items to highlight where their costs come from. (Here's what I pay for the property taxes, here's what I pay for the included utilities, here's what I pay for these maintenance services, so tada, there's your rent.)
But again, if the advertised price must be the total price, it doesn't matter if there's a mailbox access fee or not. It's no different than if they eliminate the fee but raise the price the same amount. Make the advertised price be the highest price, and say "hey, you can advertise discounts off of that".
Nobody's going to advertise you can save $5 a month by eliminating your mailbox.
A similar effect, would be no longer advertising a plan's price if you enable paperless billing and autopay. You'd have to advertise the price without, and then can offer discounts for those things.
Or movie ticket prices being required to be listed with the convenience fee included, and if a theater wants, it can advertise a discount for buying a ticket some other way. More than likely that would just kill convenience fees.
Also, in many apartments, if you try to break your lease, they will charge you a fee. We should have a regulation requiring landlords to refund the full amount charged for the previous lease if they find a new tenant to occupy the apartment after you leave.
With current market, we have to keep relocating here and there and leasing for 12 month doesn't make sense.
Pet rent seldom has anything to do with damage. If you pay pet rent, and then move out and the property manager finds damage, they make you pay for the damage out of your deposit anyway.
The last place I rented had pet rent AND a deposit. The rent definitely a junk fee. It did not accumulate or get tracked.
It's a price discriminator, to dissuade the pet owning group from renting. Why? Because they also cause negative externality to other units. That's what I can think of. If they could do a child charge I'm sure they would.
If you buy like carpet you could reasonably expect to replace it in 10-15 years, and if you allow pets you are more likely to need to. However getting 15-20 years out of it instead without pets is probably more like double-dipping than a subsidy as replacing it on the correct schedule should already be factored into the rent.
We protect kids because they are people, and we socially recognize that even if a person is potentially more likely to cause damage, there is a public interest in not discriminating against people based on age, or gender, or race.
Dogs are not people. Many in Seattle think their dogs are people, or even prefer dogs over people, but they are not, and they do not enjoy the same protections against discrimination.
If you have never been a landlord, I can see why you would think that "if they damage the property, they pay for it" is a reasonable rule that would work, because if your dog destroyed a door, the carpet, and the blinds, you are likely to be willing (if unhappy) to pay to fix it. If you have been a landlord, you know why this doesn't work, and you would also know why pursuing the damages in court also doesn't work.
(If you are wondering why: people do not pay. Deposits, which they also now capped in Seattle, often don't cover the damage. And suing people who have no money in order to get a judgment that you can't collect on is expensive and pointless.)
This just socializes the cost of pet damage onto everyone, which is why this is populist slop.
(Some of the other junk fees make much more sense: mandatory fees that you have to pay, that are fixed in nature, should just be in the advertised lease price. Think "common area fees" you can't opt out of.)
womp womp, 100% empty argument. This happens with or without pets. Maybe find better tenants instead of trying to pin it on "pet owners" as a whole. Guaranteed the same tenants who let their dogs eat doors, blinds and also don't have the money to pay for damages did their own damage and/or didn't take care of the property.
There's historically massive public interest towards discriminating against people on age, gender, or race and many other attributes. Literally happens all the time. Jobs discriminate in hiring, women and men discriminate in dating, apartments discriminate,etc. etc.
So your Human Resources version of reality is actually the opposite of what's true currently and what always has been true.
As a matter of fact there's a great deal of science showing that people feel more comfortable around their own race and age.
Dogs on the other hand do not discriminate and will love you with no bias.
Adults were kids. Without kids there are no adults. Without adults there is no society. Without pets life is a bit fuller but society goes on as it did before people adopted animals as pets.
> If you want to know why big, progressive cities have the most unaffordable housing, look no further than this law.
This is an unsubstantiated assertion. I'd want to see evidence that things like this actually move the needle on rent vs things like available housing stock, zoning, etc which seem much more likely to actually impact affordability.
Pet deposits are allowed, but they are restricted to 25% of the first month's rent and landlords cannot require a deposit if the pet is an "assistance animal" for the tenant.[1] It's unclear what qualifies as an assistance animal. If an assistance animal does cause damage, the property owner must sue for damages. I doubt such lawsuits are common, as the cost to hire a lawyer and sue in civil court is easily thousands of dollars, and compensation is far from guaranteed. Even if you win the case, collecting can be difficult.
Also I'm not sure what the new law changes. Since 2016, Seattle has banned charging extra rent for having a pet. Subsection E states: "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."
It doesn't change anything about pets, the parent poster's complaint is a dogwhistle.
What it does ban is shit like 'consigliere' trash disposal, where you are made to pay $50 a month for the privilege of not being allowed to use the building's dumpster. Instead, you have to pile your trash at your door, and then the landlord takes it to the dumpster for you. You can't opt out of it.
Oh, and the city's bill for trash disposal is still passed on to you.
Oh, and your building now smells like garbage.
(Landlords are, of course, still free to offer that as an optional paid service, which ~everyone will opt out of.)
OK so this law, enacted now and not in effect yet, which bans rental fees, is the cause of why big progressive cities that in general do not have this law, have the most unaffordable housing. That's a theory, I guess.
It makes costs more transparent, which means the market works better.
We had legal changes in the UK limiting what fees could be charged to tenants and it had no noticeable effect. The main impact was to stop letting agents charging both landlords and tenants, which reduced what they charge overall.
This is not a comment on more recent changes, or other changes, just those around fees.
Are these unaffordable housing units sitting empty?
If not, then high prices generally comes back to supply and demand, which is driven a lot more by zoning and building restrictions than by small differences in rental law.
Generally cities are expensive because people want to live there, and there is limited space for housing. The US especially has been very restrictive on density in urban and suburban areas compared to counterparts found elsewhere around the world. People wanting to live somewhere and a lack of dense housing for them increases prices.
A lot of arguments against "big, progressive cities" seem to boil down to some form of "See, nobody wants to live in these cities because it's so crowded and expensive!" which doesn't make basic economic sense.
> If not, then high prices generally comes back to supply and demand, which is driven a lot more by zoning and building restrictions than by small differences in rental law.
Not discounting the importance of supply/demand, or the damage that restrictive zoning regimes have done, but I'm not sure if this should be so strongly stated, depending on how you want to define "small differences in rental law". For example, per Wikipedia:
> In 1971, the Swedish economist Assar Lindbeck, a housing expert, said that "rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city – except for bombing". In 1989, Nguyễn Cơ Thạch, then Foreign Minister of Vietnam, observed, "The Americans couldn't destroy Hanoi, but we have destroyed our city by very low rents. We realized it was stupid and that we must change policy."
Obviously banning junk rental fees is not the same as rent control, but in either case we're talking about rental law that as an unintended second-order effect is going to (to some degree or another) discourage supplying rentals by making it harder to make money renting.
So, in the interest of being charitable to the OP, I think they're including zoning laws, building regulations, and so on in what they're saying: these cities claim to view housing as a human right, yet simultaneously seemingly do everything in their power to make it incredibly hard, expensive, and risky to supply it.
I don't agree that this attitude is exclusive to big progressive cities: the right theoretically claims to love free enterprise and deregulation, but in practice they're often just as happy with overbearing government control as long as it's their guy doing it. And if anything these days the right more than the left fetishizes certain images of American life that motivate stricter regulations on development; NIMBYism cuts across the political spectrum. But it's an attitude that maybe makes better bedfellows with the left and its intrinsic distrust of markets, and maybe afflicts those left-leaning coastal cities more because they're otherwise much better places to live and thus have higher demand.
Well, the main reason is that locals have a lot of tools to stop construction of housing, and they've been using those tools to prevent new housing from getting built for decades. But yes, this won't do anything to lower costs. It'll just get baked into the rent everyone pays.
> Which, of course, means that non pet owners are now subsidizing pet owners and the damage and wear and tear that pets cause
But most people don't think that all. And I notice that you ignored all the other fees also...
Anyway there are moral arguments against junk fees other than "cost". Nobody actually wants to live in a world where service providers are constantly sneaking fees into things. It's just unjust and shitty. You and I both know that the only reason landlords include pet fees is because they get away with it, not because it's the only way to recoup losses or something like that.
Some people are obsessed with free-riders and never happy until they know they're only narrowly paying for the smallest granular subset of things they use, and nothing that they are not personally using. This is why we have all these little fees for everything everywhere--to satisfy those people. This is why airlines are terrible now: they granularly charge for every little thing. "Why should I pay for meal service if I personally don't want to eat?" people are getting their way.
"may include" - do you really want to argue the side that ADHD children exist in a proportion that damage apartments that noticably increase the cost on tenants without children? Is that what your imagined ADHD child is doing, just ripping apart the walls?
What an insanely narrow and purposely ignorant opinion. Subsidizing pet owners? Good tenants are subsidizing bad tenants, people w/o kids subsidizing people w/kids. What is the conclusion of your argument? After i sign I do an insurance style risk assessment and they get to tack on a bunch of fees? I don't think a landlord is jacking up prices cause I have a pet and it is insane to think that I would need to pay more than someone else for that reason. I don't think it was about having or not having a pet, it was designed to squeeze as much as you can out of someone. What is the difference between human caused damage or animal caused damage? The person signing the agreement is still liable for whatever damages at the end of the day. Why can't we just leave it at that?
> There is no market incentive to advertise the all-in price of a rental unit. Research by the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research documents individual businesses losing significant market share when switching to all-in pricing. A landlord that advertises an all-in price appears more expensive than competitors with a lower base rent and unbundled fees.
> Rental junk fees represent a market failure and collective action problem that will not self-correct. Regulation of these fees is necessary to level the playing field for landlords who are transparent about their costs and protect renters from unpredictable and predatory pricing models.
This legislature requires transparency in pricing. If landlords could handle that bare minimum of responsibility on their own, without being compelled by law, it wouldn't have been required.
> If you want to know why big, progressive cities have the most unaffordable housing, look no further than this law.
Eh, I'd be willing to wager it's because those cites are where many high-paying jobs are.
Anyway:
> Which, of course, means that non pet owners are now subsidizing pet owners and the damage and wear and tear that pets cause.
Or owners can just quantify and charge for the actual wear and tear? If someone's dog digs up the yard or their claws scrape the up wood floors, just charge them to fix it (or, more likely, take it out of the deposit).
That's why these are often viewed as "junk fees", they charge you for some potential damage vs. any actual damage.
The deposit is also limited. In California, deposit is max one month rent... Not sure how difficult/possible it would be to recover more than that from a renter.
That said pets is likely not the driver of increased housing costa by any means.
It's not a "ban"; from what's described it's a disclosure requirement. It has always been required to have these in the rental agreements - but you have to publicize them so people see them before they pay an application fee.
It's not that onerous of legislation, but it also feels a bit gimmicky. I have never once had a problem getting the information when asked. And places that provide free utilities or pets already advertise themselves heavily as such - this would really only benefit extreme novices in the market
Seattle's push to add additional regulation, compliance, fees and inspections has resulted in an exodus of small landlords, which are down anywhere from 19% to 22% in four years depending on how you slice it, and an explosion in large landlords which are up 77% in the same period.
The city has basically consolidated the rental market so it works best for large corporations. Was that the intent?
Small landlords don't own apartment buildings. They buy houses to rent, lowering availability for buyers. So, you'd at least want to look at the number of new apartment rentals available plus the number of first time house buyers to get a better picture.
Small landlords also rent out basement suites and carriage homes on their own property, no? Those may very well sit empty if the return isn’t worth the risk.
Editing to just add: I absolutely support transparent pricing for rental properties.
They don't own the buildings, but it's frequently part of a condo association and they own a unit or two.
> lowering availability for buyers
This makes an unsubstantiated assumption that everyone would rather buy and can afford to, ignoring that people have reasons to rent.
Can you cite what laws you are talking about. The one being discussed here does not seem to target small landlords, but big predatory ones. There aren't any additional fees or inspections and compliance is as simple as only charging one amount for rent and not tacking on additional fees.
My experience when renting in Seattle a decade ago was that it wasn't particularly hard to find a place, and that the only places that dealt in these bullshit fees were the big corporate landlords.
Causation or correlation (if that)? I doubt small time landlords are charging these fees anyway.
I think this might help small landlords out a bit. Big corporate landlords can easily add nonsense fees to make the rent look low. Small landlords wouldn't bother charging you to use your own mailbox and usually don't have common areas to charge you for access to. With things made transparent, the small landlords can simply offer a price, and be on a more level playing field.
You can't compare if you don't know the cost, if you can't compare it is hard for the invisible hand to price the market.
Price transparency makes more efficient markets.
Seattle should do restaurants next, the number of places with %fees tacked on that aren't tips and aren't optional, just so they don't end up having $20+ entrees on the menu is growing steadily.
It's amazing how people neglect this basic fact. Free markets already often don't work in practice. But they don't even work in theory if both parties do not have at the very least the same information in order to base their decisions. These sort of scam tactics (like dynamic pricing) are simply fraud, much like hiding problems in a car or a house you sell.
We need a global ban on junk fees. I am tired of shit like AT&T's "Administrative & Regulatory Cost Recovery Fee".
On one side, I fully understand that. On the other side, if this really reflects the cost of compliance, maybe this is the only way to signal the voter that the "there ought to be a law" approach has some downsides to it.
How would you like it if you rented a VM from AWS, and in the bill they added fees for employee health insurance, social security and medicare? That's a cost of compliance too!
Solution: you may put it on the receipt, but the price you advertise must be final all-in. Gas stations manage it just fine. Advertised price is what you pay, but receipt shows the taxes
This isn't a ban on junk fees. It's an upfront disclosure requirement.
I honestly think a us ban would get us quite far, also in a global setting.
You can ban business from passing on their costs to their customers.
Australia just tried this by banning businesses from charging a card use surcharge.
You really reckon business aren’t going to then just wrap the cost of card service / merchant fees in to every product, thereby hurting those who pay with cash?
Hint: that’s exactly what businesses are doing. I know because I asked them.
Maybe stop voting for politicians who believe they can tax and regulate an economy to growth and productivity.
A fee for a specific service (ie using a card vs using cash) is pretty different from unavoidable junk fees. As long as a fee like that is advertised up-front it's totally fine; but fees that everybody has to pay are a qualitatively different thing because they are just a way to get a misleadingly low sticker price for the product.
In the US we were well on the way to substantial national bans on these types of junk fees under the Biden administration's CFPB, Khan's FTC, etc and then Trump reversed everything a few months into his current term.
Being ripped off by large corporations at every transaction is what "owning the libs" looks like for your life in practice, but hey at least you can say slurs on twitter now!
I wonder if there's any (transparently self-serving) pushback against this on Seattle Nextdoor or the like. It sounds like a straightforward set of rules that's great for everyone... but I've learned that this is never enough, and I'm sure there are some people insisting that this is some massive crime against landlords and, by extension, tenants.
We need a national law and FTC teeth to say "The price advertised is the final, final, all-in price you pay" and the right to demand the product be delivered at that price if you were advertised a price. This should include limits on dynamic pricing which "whoops the price changed for the worse between when we showed it to you and when you drove to the store..."
As an example related to Renting. I once saw a place advertised for rent at a price in my budget. Booked a showing the next day. The dynamic pricing increased it several hundred dollars above my budget. The land lord (company) would not honor the price I booked my showing at. I immediately left saying I do not do business with such dishonest practices.
We also need to ban using the renters as a captured audience for products.
Edit to add:
When I last rented from a big corp I got:
$5 a month semi-mandatory fee on automated payments through their app (as if them handling a check would actually cost them less than an automated payment)
Mandatory internet package through a single provider.
"Resort fee" of $30 a month which was more than the cost of a proximal gym providing 10x the equipment.
Move in charge - $50 just to move in as if I was going to rent but not move in?
Move out charge - $50 just to move out as if I was going to not move out when my lease ended?
I also think rent raises after a year's lease should be limited . Why is the 13th month 100% more as if I'm not a long term renter? It makes some sense for short term rentals but this isnt a 1 month rental, it's a 1 month extension to a long term rent.
There's nothing more American than not knowing the price you're going to pay for something until you have to pay it. This applies to everything from income taxes to health care to big ticket purchases like homes and cars, to airline tickets, to cell phone and cable service, all the way down to restaurants with tips and service fees and everything on the store shelf, where sales tax is not included in the price of the good. Somehow the USA has normalized this throughout its entire culture.
Because of innumeracy. You can hide a business opportunity in basic arithmetics. If it's "too hard" to calculate people give up.
I’m not an American, but here in Canada there are a lot of extra fees and such where I live as well.
I don’t believe the problem is purely innumeracy on the consumer’s part.
If companies clearly stated “A(B + C)” as a price, even people with poor math skills would understand that the price is not “B”.
But it’s more like the price is advertised as “B” and “A(B+C)” only appears in fine print or seconds before payment.
Your comment says you can “hide a business opportunity”. I would instead call that “being dishonest”.
This isn't about math being too hard. It's about companies deliberately hiding and obfuscating what you owe.
Try this. My cell phone service is AT&T's "Value Plus VL" service with three lines. Tell me my exact monthly bill down to the cent. Do all the Internet searching you need and all the math you need to.
In a world where companies weren't actively hiding what you pay, you would easily be able to do this.
It reminds me of my first time in Europe as an American. You go to a cafe, look at the prices, and know exactly how much money you are going to be handing them. It felt like magic because I couldn't remember the last time I paid just the advertised price on anything.
Now, unfortunately in places like the UK, tips are becoming more frequent as well as a discretionary 12.5% service charge at restaurants. And everything online has a convenience fee.
I wish governments would get serious about price transparency. The solution is quite simple, but I fear that with algorithmic pricing things are going to be getting much worse in the short term.
I don't have any hope for broad legislation that affects all businesses. Americans are so used to + tax + tips + convenience fees that doing anything else would hurt at both ends: consumers will claim inflation (oh that 8.99+30% burger is now 11.50? Tragedy) and businesses will mourn the loss of scam tactics that lets them earn more.
Retailer here. I would absolutely love all inclusive pricing legislation. Since we're not trying to screw our customers (we're a co-op, so our customers are also our owners), I'd love to be on a fairer playing field with frontline pricing from the businesses trying to lie, cheat, and steal their way to a higher margin.
Until Congressional and Executive branch regime change, you should expect city and state efforts to be more effective in the interim. Focus there until regime change and federal change is possible, as it currently is not possible. Death of junk fees via "death by a thousand cuts." Companies can keep up with federal lobbying, they cannot keep up with cities and states all at once. See: data centers and ALPRs.
"Regime change" will have to be deeper than a switch of the usual parties—think what the DSA are proposing, a complete overhaul of the Constitution.
Lina Khan was very effective under the last administration, which is why she works for Mamdani now in NYC.
Mamdani taps Lina Khan and Tony Shorris for key New York economic posts - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/22/lina-khan-ny... - July 22nd, 2026
> think what the DSA are proposing, a complete overhaul of the Constitution.
Strongly agree, onward, elections keep happening, electorate turnover is continuous (and a likely component of why NYC and Seattle have DSA mayors, and Providence, Rhode Island is about to have one).
Citations:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48950696
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48788820
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46529387
Banning junk fees / truth in advertising is good. But I absolutely hate that pet rent was bundled in to this. Pets occasionally cause very high amounts of real damage that should be covered by pet owners, not tenants without pets. And Seattle has banned every other possible avenue of passing this expense only to the parties responsible (higher deposits).
Yes this will absolutely raise rents for everyone in order to cover pet damage costs, which can easily reach thousands, exceeding any profit for the lease term. They are the top cause of rental unit damage.
Many smaller landlords will choose to exclude pets entirely in order to keep rental rates competitive.
(I have worked in housing in Seattle and have seen this first hand. And I love pets, have them myself!)
If you worked in housing in Seattle you would know it's not really legal or practicable for landlords to exclude pets, considering the expansiveness of ESA designations. Almost every landlord already excludes pets outside of ESAs
Yes and the ESA program is unfortunately regularly abused. Without judging tenants, I know multiple people from my personal network who proudly got the ESA designation simply to get around the rule.
There are numerous pet-friendly landlords, but typically the rent is not cheap. Pets have a real cost — they aren’t cheap for the owner, I don’t know why the owner assumes they don’t add cost to their living situation.
The main complaint seems to be that there is not a glut of cheap pet-friendly rentals, which is an unrealistic expectation in Seattle where the housing market is already extremely competitive.
> Many smaller landlords will choose to exclude pets
That would be amazing! Imagine no poop and no smell! And no barking!
And no subsidizing others peoples farm animals!
Funny how "pets" does not usually include rabbits, mouse, aquarium fish or snakes.
Pet deposit is for that, not pet rent. Or just deposit in general. Humans _can_ cause just as much damage as pets.
This will likely result in more "No pets allowed" leases
Is there data to show that pets actually cause more damage? I see this argument get thrown around quite frequently (often by landlords), but I don't buy that it's a major issue.
Yes, absolutely.
It isn't that every pet causes more damage as a rule, its that very frequently pets do damage that is quite expensive. Urine can require floor and subfloor replacement. I've seen dogs chew through walls, etc. Pets in common areas leaving tracks and fur, etc. I'm a dog lover, but it would be folly to pretend that owning a dog does not cause additional wear and tear on my house.
That said, damage from pets should be handled through the damage deposit. Pet rent is just another way to pad the bill.
I am thinking it might be less about the damages (which the tenants are obliged to pay for anyway) and more about the extra work the property must do to deal with noise complaints, escaped pets, possible legal actions, hassles the maintenance might need to show up for, possible extra hours staff might need to work, pooper scoopering, yellowing grass, etc.
Well, there are plenty of lies. Because tenants are liable for the supposed damages regardless of whether landlords can grab $100/mo or whatever.
That's not to say that pets can cause tons of damage: if someone let's a cat spray inside and doesn't immediately clean it, that can cost tens of thousands if it seeps down to the underlayment. But (1) that ain't getting covered by the $50 - $100 they want to gouge people for; and (2) tenants are liable for that either way.
Can property owners not just go to small claims court?
Typically these claims are completely unrecoverable. The tenants don’t have the money, and the cost of pursuing further is too high. The only way to ensure payment is to get it upfront.
That's what damage deposits are for, no?
Damage deposits are capped.
It is not hard for an irresponsible renter to do way more damage than a deposit can cover.
Maybe we'll see an exodus of landlords as this becomes a less economically viable lifestyle.
Which is exactly what another post was saying: that large corporations will step in instead.
land lords assess and charge for damages, regardless of source
why should pets require a monthly, non refundable fee regardless of damages or not?
My main gripe is my building charges $50 more for EV spots and then wants to charge as much as the charging stations, that's a nope for me, I'll just charge while buying groceries
Damage is what damage deposits are for, and Seattle allows pet damage deposits.
I would think that if a pet causes a high amount of real damage, the landlord should still be able to seek remuneration for that damage. They just can't charge for it in advance.
It's an insurance premium of sorts. They are statistically much more likely to have a problem, so they adjust they rent to make the deal a positive expected value again.
Urine soaking into a subfloor can easily cost more to repair than the security deposit, and recovering damages in court is hard and expensive in its own right (if the person even has money to take).
Not to mention, even when there's no apparent damage, a pet apartment can require extra cleaning to get rid of odors and dander.
It just makes sense for the landlord to price in a potential headache.
Did you ever had to salvage house after cats or dogs? Normal deposit or insurance does not cover that!
Usually it means replacing carpets, wooden floors and bottom part of walls!
Urine contamination gets everywhere , there is no way to remove that smell!!
the monthly fee is not going to cover that amount of damage either
we already have courts and torts to cover those rare occasions
"Rare occasions"? Really?
The ordinance does not prohibit a pet deposit.
Now we know you have never been a landlord... "Seek it after the fact" works out in ~0% of the time. Best case is you can sell the debt to a collections agency for ten cents on the dollar, and that is after a court case that you are unlikely to win in the first place. This is why security deposits exist. Cause "get it after" rarely works out.
Because it exceeds the security deposit?
I think in general my preference is the other part of this story: Rather than choosing what fees can and can't be offered, require both brutal price transparency and prohibit advertising the unrealistic/lesser cost.
A friend of mine has recently lamented the idea gas stations can advertise "with car wash" pricing on top with what is "fine print" on the sign, which looks good but isn't when you factor in the cost of the car wash.
Another favorite is the personal loan ad, saying you're preapproved for a loan as low as 6% APR but actually you can be denied and the loan could be up to 36% APR even if you get approved. Nonsense.
I don't have a huge problem with a discount for car washes but the advertisement should be an out the door price or rate. Similarly I don't mind capped or content-restricted data plans, but the advertised price should be the unlimited one.
I don't think we should decide what businesses can sell, but we should make it very hard to mislead on the ad. Force advertisements to be the highest price instead of the lowest price, and you'll find companies finding ways to remove fees from the table themselves.
I think you should check out the kinds of fees they call out as no longer allowed[1]. They include things like: a fee to "perform landlord duties" and a fee to "access your mailbox." I absolutely think it should be illegal for your landlord to hold your mail hostage.
That said, this generally allows optional fees - they just need to be disclosed, have clear opt-in and out, and cannot be profit centers for the landlord.
[1] https://seattle.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=15702946&GUID=...
I mean obviously fees should either be included in the original price, or there should be a reason it might apply in some cases but not others. But I can also see someone just wanting to break out the costs as separate line items to highlight where their costs come from. (Here's what I pay for the property taxes, here's what I pay for the included utilities, here's what I pay for these maintenance services, so tada, there's your rent.)
But again, if the advertised price must be the total price, it doesn't matter if there's a mailbox access fee or not. It's no different than if they eliminate the fee but raise the price the same amount. Make the advertised price be the highest price, and say "hey, you can advertise discounts off of that".
Nobody's going to advertise you can save $5 a month by eliminating your mailbox.
A similar effect, would be no longer advertising a plan's price if you enable paperless billing and autopay. You'd have to advertise the price without, and then can offer discounts for those things.
Or movie ticket prices being required to be listed with the convenience fee included, and if a theater wants, it can advertise a discount for buying a ticket some other way. More than likely that would just kill convenience fees.
https://wilson.seattle.gov/2026/08/12/in-major-affordability...
https://seattle.legistar.com/ViewReport.ashx?M=R&N=Text&GID=...
Also, in many apartments, if you try to break your lease, they will charge you a fee. We should have a regulation requiring landlords to refund the full amount charged for the previous lease if they find a new tenant to occupy the apartment after you leave.
With current market, we have to keep relocating here and there and leasing for 12 month doesn't make sense.
That already exists in many states. The problem is you need to take the landlord to court to recover, if they don't pony up.
If you want to know why big, progressive cities have the most unaffordable housing, look no further than this law.
It bans "pet rent". Which, of course, means that non pet owners are now subsidizing pet owners and the damage and wear and tear that pets cause.
All for what, exactly?
Pet rent seldom has anything to do with damage. If you pay pet rent, and then move out and the property manager finds damage, they make you pay for the damage out of your deposit anyway.
The last place I rented had pet rent AND a deposit. The rent definitely a junk fee. It did not accumulate or get tracked.
I had a pet who caused damage to a rental. I had been paying pet rent, and was also charged for the damage. What exactly was the pet rent covering?
Charge for damage if and when there is damage. Anything else is ridiculous.
It's a price discriminator, to dissuade the pet owning group from renting. Why? Because they also cause negative externality to other units. That's what I can think of. If they could do a child charge I'm sure they would.
Shouldn't there be a kid fee then? Kids are likely to cause damage and everyone is subsidizing it.
It should just be common sense. You have a kid or you have a pet. They damaged the property, you pay it.
Kids do less damage and there's a stronger argument for subsidizing them than dogs.
Pet rent isn't about directly covering damage; it's more like buying an insurance policy that occasionally covers large pet-necessitated repairs.
Nobody is subsidizing anything. If damage occurs the tenant pays for it
If you buy like carpet you could reasonably expect to replace it in 10-15 years, and if you allow pets you are more likely to need to. However getting 15-20 years out of it instead without pets is probably more like double-dipping than a subsidy as replacing it on the correct schedule should already be factored into the rent.
Depends on the kid
Probably should be a fee for heavy-handed people banging doors and drawers and faucets around too.
This is the only junk rental fee I might actually support, for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with property damage.
We protect kids because they are people, and we socially recognize that even if a person is potentially more likely to cause damage, there is a public interest in not discriminating against people based on age, or gender, or race.
Dogs are not people. Many in Seattle think their dogs are people, or even prefer dogs over people, but they are not, and they do not enjoy the same protections against discrimination.
If you have never been a landlord, I can see why you would think that "if they damage the property, they pay for it" is a reasonable rule that would work, because if your dog destroyed a door, the carpet, and the blinds, you are likely to be willing (if unhappy) to pay to fix it. If you have been a landlord, you know why this doesn't work, and you would also know why pursuing the damages in court also doesn't work.
(If you are wondering why: people do not pay. Deposits, which they also now capped in Seattle, often don't cover the damage. And suing people who have no money in order to get a judgment that you can't collect on is expensive and pointless.)
This just socializes the cost of pet damage onto everyone, which is why this is populist slop.
(Some of the other junk fees make much more sense: mandatory fees that you have to pay, that are fixed in nature, should just be in the advertised lease price. Think "common area fees" you can't opt out of.)
womp womp, 100% empty argument. This happens with or without pets. Maybe find better tenants instead of trying to pin it on "pet owners" as a whole. Guaranteed the same tenants who let their dogs eat doors, blinds and also don't have the money to pay for damages did their own damage and/or didn't take care of the property.
There's historically massive public interest towards discriminating against people on age, gender, or race and many other attributes. Literally happens all the time. Jobs discriminate in hiring, women and men discriminate in dating, apartments discriminate,etc. etc.
So your Human Resources version of reality is actually the opposite of what's true currently and what always has been true.
As a matter of fact there's a great deal of science showing that people feel more comfortable around their own race and age.
Dogs on the other hand do not discriminate and will love you with no bias.
Adults were kids. Without kids there are no adults. Without adults there is no society. Without pets life is a bit fuller but society goes on as it did before people adopted animals as pets.
> If you want to know why big, progressive cities have the most unaffordable housing, look no further than this law.
This is an unsubstantiated assertion. I'd want to see evidence that things like this actually move the needle on rent vs things like available housing stock, zoning, etc which seem much more likely to actually impact affordability.
Does Seattle allow pet deposits? That seems like a straightforward way to handle that, and it's what I've seen when renting elsewhere.
Pet deposits are allowed, but they are restricted to 25% of the first month's rent and landlords cannot require a deposit if the pet is an "assistance animal" for the tenant.[1] It's unclear what qualifies as an assistance animal. If an assistance animal does cause damage, the property owner must sue for damages. I doubt such lawsuits are common, as the cost to hire a lawyer and sue in civil court is easily thousands of dollars, and compensation is far from guaranteed. Even if you win the case, collecting can be difficult.
Also I'm not sure what the new law changes. Since 2016, Seattle has banned charging extra rent for having a pet. Subsection E states: "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."
1. https://library.municode.com/wa/seattle/codes/municipal_code...
> Also I'm not sure what the new law changes
It doesn't change anything about pets, the parent poster's complaint is a dogwhistle.
What it does ban is shit like 'consigliere' trash disposal, where you are made to pay $50 a month for the privilege of not being allowed to use the building's dumpster. Instead, you have to pile your trash at your door, and then the landlord takes it to the dumpster for you. You can't opt out of it.
Oh, and the city's bill for trash disposal is still passed on to you.
Oh, and your building now smells like garbage.
(Landlords are, of course, still free to offer that as an optional paid service, which ~everyone will opt out of.)
It does not. Total deposit is capped at a single month's rent.
Click the link to the ordinance. It explicitly permits pet damage deposits.
Yes, this legislature explicitly permits them.
OK so this law, enacted now and not in effect yet, which bans rental fees, is the cause of why big progressive cities that in general do not have this law, have the most unaffordable housing. That's a theory, I guess.
It makes costs more transparent, which means the market works better.
We had legal changes in the UK limiting what fees could be charged to tenants and it had no noticeable effect. The main impact was to stop letting agents charging both landlords and tenants, which reduced what they charge overall.
This is not a comment on more recent changes, or other changes, just those around fees.
Are these unaffordable housing units sitting empty?
If not, then high prices generally comes back to supply and demand, which is driven a lot more by zoning and building restrictions than by small differences in rental law.
Generally cities are expensive because people want to live there, and there is limited space for housing. The US especially has been very restrictive on density in urban and suburban areas compared to counterparts found elsewhere around the world. People wanting to live somewhere and a lack of dense housing for them increases prices.
A lot of arguments against "big, progressive cities" seem to boil down to some form of "See, nobody wants to live in these cities because it's so crowded and expensive!" which doesn't make basic economic sense.
> If not, then high prices generally comes back to supply and demand, which is driven a lot more by zoning and building restrictions than by small differences in rental law.
Not discounting the importance of supply/demand, or the damage that restrictive zoning regimes have done, but I'm not sure if this should be so strongly stated, depending on how you want to define "small differences in rental law". For example, per Wikipedia:
> In 1971, the Swedish economist Assar Lindbeck, a housing expert, said that "rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city – except for bombing". In 1989, Nguyễn Cơ Thạch, then Foreign Minister of Vietnam, observed, "The Americans couldn't destroy Hanoi, but we have destroyed our city by very low rents. We realized it was stupid and that we must change policy."
Obviously banning junk rental fees is not the same as rent control, but in either case we're talking about rental law that as an unintended second-order effect is going to (to some degree or another) discourage supplying rentals by making it harder to make money renting.
So, in the interest of being charitable to the OP, I think they're including zoning laws, building regulations, and so on in what they're saying: these cities claim to view housing as a human right, yet simultaneously seemingly do everything in their power to make it incredibly hard, expensive, and risky to supply it.
I don't agree that this attitude is exclusive to big progressive cities: the right theoretically claims to love free enterprise and deregulation, but in practice they're often just as happy with overbearing government control as long as it's their guy doing it. And if anything these days the right more than the left fetishizes certain images of American life that motivate stricter regulations on development; NIMBYism cuts across the political spectrum. But it's an attitude that maybe makes better bedfellows with the left and its intrinsic distrust of markets, and maybe afflicts those left-leaning coastal cities more because they're otherwise much better places to live and thus have higher demand.
> If you want to know why big, progressive cities have the most unaffordable housing, look no further than this law.
And how exactly does the causality for this work, in your head? Rent is already high in the big, highly desirable cities, before this law.
Is this some new form of retro-causality? A law passed today drove rent up 5 years ago?
Well, the main reason is that locals have a lot of tools to stop construction of housing, and they've been using those tools to prevent new housing from getting built for decades. But yes, this won't do anything to lower costs. It'll just get baked into the rent everyone pays.
Well that's if you believe
> Which, of course, means that non pet owners are now subsidizing pet owners and the damage and wear and tear that pets cause
But most people don't think that all. And I notice that you ignored all the other fees also...
Anyway there are moral arguments against junk fees other than "cost". Nobody actually wants to live in a world where service providers are constantly sneaking fees into things. It's just unjust and shitty. You and I both know that the only reason landlords include pet fees is because they get away with it, not because it's the only way to recoup losses or something like that.
Some people are obsessed with free-riders and never happy until they know they're only narrowly paying for the smallest granular subset of things they use, and nothing that they are not personally using. This is why we have all these little fees for everything everywhere--to satisfy those people. This is why airlines are terrible now: they granularly charge for every little thing. "Why should I pay for meal service if I personally don't want to eat?" people are getting their way.
To be fair, it seems like landlords may still ban pets and they are explicitly permitted to have a pet damage deposit.
It bans pet fees, but it does not ban pet damage deposits. Try reading before complaining.
Also, renters of well-behaved, toilet-trained, quiet pets are subsidizing renters with ADHD children.
You don't seem to know what ADHD is.
ADHD creates the founders that create the returns that pay for the operations of the site we are reading.
Neither do you apparently:
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/adhd/symptoms...
"Hyperactive means being too active and having too much energy. It may include disruptive behavior."
"Run around or climb in situations when it's not proper."
"may include" - do you really want to argue the side that ADHD children exist in a proportion that damage apartments that noticably increase the cost on tenants without children? Is that what your imagined ADHD child is doing, just ripping apart the walls?
Greystar's near monopoly on rentals is why
What an insanely narrow and purposely ignorant opinion. Subsidizing pet owners? Good tenants are subsidizing bad tenants, people w/o kids subsidizing people w/kids. What is the conclusion of your argument? After i sign I do an insurance style risk assessment and they get to tack on a bunch of fees? I don't think a landlord is jacking up prices cause I have a pet and it is insane to think that I would need to pay more than someone else for that reason. I don't think it was about having or not having a pet, it was designed to squeeze as much as you can out of someone. What is the difference between human caused damage or animal caused damage? The person signing the agreement is still liable for whatever damages at the end of the day. Why can't we just leave it at that?
From the legislature:
> There is no market incentive to advertise the all-in price of a rental unit. Research by the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research documents individual businesses losing significant market share when switching to all-in pricing. A landlord that advertises an all-in price appears more expensive than competitors with a lower base rent and unbundled fees.
> Rental junk fees represent a market failure and collective action problem that will not self-correct. Regulation of these fees is necessary to level the playing field for landlords who are transparent about their costs and protect renters from unpredictable and predatory pricing models.
This legislature requires transparency in pricing. If landlords could handle that bare minimum of responsibility on their own, without being compelled by law, it wouldn't have been required.
Oh, and pet damage deposits are still legal.
one-time, refundable deposit is very different from a monthly non-refundable fee
> If you want to know why big, progressive cities have the most unaffordable housing, look no further than this law.
Eh, I'd be willing to wager it's because those cites are where many high-paying jobs are.
Anyway:
> Which, of course, means that non pet owners are now subsidizing pet owners and the damage and wear and tear that pets cause.
Or owners can just quantify and charge for the actual wear and tear? If someone's dog digs up the yard or their claws scrape the up wood floors, just charge them to fix it (or, more likely, take it out of the deposit).
That's why these are often viewed as "junk fees", they charge you for some potential damage vs. any actual damage.
How successful do you think landlords are at recovering damage costs from former tenants that aren't covered by the deposit?
The deposit is also limited. In California, deposit is max one month rent... Not sure how difficult/possible it would be to recover more than that from a renter.
That said pets is likely not the driver of increased housing costa by any means.
Ridiculous take. It doesn't increase the average rent.
to support the fledgling private pet security industrial complex, who's going to stop the undesirables from dining on our furry friends?
/s