Posted on 04/23/2024 6:34:44 AM PDT by Twotone
Democrats in the California legislature are pushing a law that critics say will hurt renters with higher rents by imposing restrictions on landlords.
"This is really going to cause havoc to renters in California," said Daniel Yukelson of the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles to Blaze News about Assembly Bill 1266.
AB 1266 would restrict landlords from asking whether potential renters have pets and would ban them from requiring pet deposits in order to cover the potential cost of damage from pets. Coverage of the bill in the mainstream media has been mostly positive and ignored criticism from housing experts who say the bill would likely lead to higher rent prices and other damaging consequences.
The bill was authored by California Assembly Member Matt Haney, a Democrat, who says that it is unfair to pet owners that landlords can restrict pets in their units or charge them a deposit to cover possible damages.
“A two-tiered system that punishes people for having pets, or treats them differently, or has a greater burden on them just for that fact should not be allowed in the law,” said Haney to KQED-TV.
Opponents of the bill say that it will only worsen the housing crisis in California.
Yukelson outlined numerous ways that the bill could be detrimental to the availability of housing in California by adding another restriction on housing providers.
One of his major concerns is how the proposed legislation could make it harder for property owners to obtain affordable insurance. He pointed out that insurance companies are already raising their premiums or dropping coverage altogether in California. Forcing all landlords to accept pets would add another complication that will hurt tenants in the long run.
"You can't even get renewals in a lot of cases, and this is just gonna add insult to injury because the insurance companies are just going to exclude all liability coverage for pets if we're forced to accept these animals," Yukelson explained.
He went on to say that many rentals don't have lawns or other outside accommodations for pets, making them inappropriate for pet owners. With the new law, property owners would have to allow pets regardless of whether the property can accommodate them.
'Smell this photo'
Erin Stumpf, a Sacramento-based realtor, criticized the proposal by posting a photograph of excessive damage done to a rental unit by pets that she says added up to thousands.
"Don’t limit a housing provider’s ability to decline pets," Stumpf posted to X, formerly known as Twitter.
"A pet can do TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS damage," she added. "If you could smell this photo maybe you’d get it."
Stumpf elaborated her point in a statement to Blaze News. She said the additional restrictions would just add more pressure to increase rental requirements.
"As a rental property owner myself, I will probably be inclined to impose much more stringent minimum credit score and income qualifications on potential renters if I must accept pets," she wrote. "Pets can be very destructive between digging, chewing, and urinating, etc., so as a rental housing provider, if I am forced to rent to a tenant with a pet, I will want to ensure that I only rent to absolutely the most responsible tenants who have sufficient income and assets, where I can hope to recover the cost of pet damage upon move-out."
Yukelson added that the bill could force people with allergic reactions to pets to be forced to live in units next to pet owners.
Other organizations voiced similar concerns, including the California Apartment Association and the Southern California Rental Housing Association, among many more. 'It's simple economics'
Haney has claimed the pet law is aimed at easing the housing crisis.
“We’re not going to solve our housing crisis if we continue to allow for no protections for pet owners who represent the majority of our tenants,” Haney has said. “This is simply about access to housing.”
Yukelson explains why the new proposal on top of decades of over-regulation will make the housing crisis far worse.
"It's just another straw that breaks the camel's back. These days people are getting out of the business. They can't afford to be in the business, they can't stomach it any more, there's so many layers of regulation," he continued.
"And then the legislators sit back and they wonder, 'Why do we have a housing shortage? Why do we have the worst homelessness situation in the country? Why do we have skyrocketing rents?'" Yukelson added.
"Well, it's simple economics," he concluded. "There's just not enough housing for people. And there's policies that we've had in place for more than four decades that are not working, and they need to be balanced so at least the property owners have a fighting chance to stay in the business! It's crazy!"
The law is considered to be the first of its kind in the U.S., but its detractors are afraid that it will spread to other states. The bill has passed the Judiciary Committee and is now on the Assembly floor.
Yukelson admits that Haney's office has been trying to come up with a compromise to answer some of the criticism, including the possibility of increasing limits on security deposits.
He did identify one benefit of the mismanagement of politics in California.
"The only thing we have going for us to help our housing is people are leaving California in droves, but those are all the taxpayers!" he joked.
Haney's office did not respond to requests for a comment from Blaze News.
Deep State does not like competition.
We’ll have our Section 8 housing.
And we’ll like it.
Or else.
Another blinding display of economic illiteracy from the Democrats in the California legislature.
A pet deposit for everyone, it’s called Rent Increase! Of course no one minds if they move into a urine smelling apartment!
Hair-trigger pitbulls and highly-strung chihuahuas vote “Aye!”
you can see where this is going. Next up on the Democrat Hit Parade…eliminating credit scores and income requirements as tenant criteria.
I’ve had several opportunities to be a landlord over the years. Seeing the headaches that come with it, just not worth the financial gain for me. I like a simple life. I’ve invested elsewhere.
Thank the Obozo/Biden Whitehouse for this situation.
Back in the 80s, my parents invested in a small (8-unit) apartment building in SE Portland. I don’t think they ever made any money from the place, and the problems were constant. They sold it after about two years and were happy to get rid of it.
I can only imagine how much worse it must be to be a landlord these days.
Animals can cause untold damage to rentals, unfortunately.
We had one renter who had (secret) indoor cats - seemingly without a litter box. After they left, the entire house smelled like cat urine, which is near impossible to remove.
All of the flooring had to be replaced and we were wondering if we had to take up the foundation to get rid of the smell. Fortunately, most of the smell disappeared when the floor padding was removed. Very expensive - and the deposit didn’t cover it.
We are in the process of selling off the rentals and getting out of the rental business in California.
Once you allow pets, you are pretty much locked in. Like smokers.
People with allergies can’t be safely accommodated thereafter even with
stringent and expensive efforts to sanitize…guess someone with an asthmatic child could even sue the landlord. Then there is barking, clawing and urine!
Say…are these idiots mandating that hotels allow pets?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.