Sacramento, CA: California is considering a proposal that would oblige landlords to allow pets in rental properties. Landlords are concerned that this shift could lead to increased fees to cover any pet-related damages and restrictions on security deposits to the equivalent of one month’s rent.
Assembly Bill 2216 was proposed by Assemblymember Matt Haney, a Democrat from San Francisco, as a placeholder bill with minimal details to be developed further during the parliamentary procedure. The bill states the Legislature’s intention to pass laws on a landlord’s power to ban ordinary household pets in rental properties, while Haney’s remark on the bill clarifies his purpose.
AB 2216, according to Haney’s office, aims to prevent landlords from implementing general pet bans in rental apartments. It mandates that landlords must have valid reasons for not permitting pets in a rental unit and can only inquire about pet ownership once a tenant’s application has been accepted.
Recently, Haney enacted a bill that restricts security deposits to the equivalent of one month’s rent. If the measure is approved, landlord associations caution that the restriction on security deposits, along with the substantial expenses related to pet damages, may prompt landlords to raise rental prices.
Debra Carlton, Executive Vice President State Government Affairs at the California Apartment Association, explained that higher rents would be necessary since damage costs cannot be recovered from a security deposit. “Security deposits may be applied towards the final month’s rent, leaving no funds available for potential damages.”
Some people cautioned about disturbances to other renters and the potential insurance complications posed by specific dog breeds.
Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles Executive Director Daniel Yukelson stated that occupants at a property might have been exposed to a biting incident and could be fearful of being around animals, while others might have severe allergies. Some insurance companies exhibit breed discrimination, leading to increased difficulty and cost in acquiring liability insurance in California’s troubled insurance market.
Forbes investigation indicates that all house insurance companies prohibit pit bulls, Rottweilers, and Dobermanns. Pitbulls account for less than 6% of all canines but are responsible for 66% of fatal dog bites.
However, Haney’s team asserts that 70% of tenants own pets, whereas only 30% of rental properties in a city are pet-friendly. This results in landlords being inadequately protected against potential damages when tenants bring in pets without their consent.
Haney stated that humans have pets, whether they like it or not, and this practice has been constant throughout history and will continue in the future. Landlords are missing out on potential good renters due to blanket no-companion pet regulations, which result in rejections without the opportunity to apply for housing. The current system is detrimental to all individuals.
According to Haney’s statement, landlords can impose “reasonable” pet limitations. However, the lack of details in his bill makes it challenging to determine the specific criteria for what is considered “reasonable” and who will be responsible for making that decision.