return2ozmaCalifornia Bill Would Require Landlords to Accept Pets
ArbitraryValueIs 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?
You sound like a lovely human being.
Actually I’ve noticed that it’s the no-pet Karens/Kevins who sound entitled and insufferable.
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.
ThrashyI think it might increase supply, but only in a paradoxical sense. I’ve had to deal with tremendous damage done to my home by line 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 the house up for sale. It’s just not worth it.
Most pets, like most people, are not incredibly damaging.
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.
Flying SquidSure. 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.
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.
🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 🏆I have been seeing political commercials for at least 3 different bills/campaigns to write bills aimed at fixing housing issues recently; though they are all California specific. One of which uses the motto “the rent is too damn high.”
I am not in California (anymore) but I would definitely like more information if you have it.
“If I haven’t already come across it, it doesn’t exist, because I am aware of everything that is reported on” right?
Or, you know, an example could be given rather than me just “trust me bro.”
www.assembly.ca.gov/…/todays-events
Our state government tackles a ton of stuff on the regular. There’s literally too much stuff going on for anyone to keep track of all of it.
Love this take. Thank you!
I haven’t seen any of this in my state. California isn’t the whole world
I see you don’t have any pets.
I have two dogs and a fish.
Amazingly we can have multiple conversations at once.
Great, when are lawmakers going to start having multiple conversations at once?
When we break the Repuglicans hold on the legislature.
“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.
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.
Whether you do or not, people have to because that’s where the jobs are. And they can’t afford to. And that’s the real problem.
Learn to plumb or be an electrician. Both are very in demand and pay well.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Do you think everyone in San Francisco can be a plumber or an electrician?
People need to do things like work the espresso machine at Starbucks because, at least for now, we don’t have robots to do it. And they can’t afford to live in the city.
No, not everyone in San Fransisco can be an electrician or plumber, but the many that are complaining about high prices of rent can learn a trade and move to lower cost areas where the pay is good. The people working Starbucks espresso machines are in the same boat. If you’re working 40+ hours a week and can’t find a place with roomates to live you need to move somewhere more affordable.
If you’re working 40+ hours a week and can’t find a place with roomates to live you need to move somewhere more affordable.
Fine. Who is going to make the coffee? Or flip the burgers? Or wash the dishes? Or deliver pizza?
Should San Francisco not have any low-cost food options?
Because you sure don’t sound like you think service industry workers deserve more pay.
If you cannot afford to live in San Fransisco you shouldn’t live in San Fransisco. If all of these people left, the market would fall to the point where the city becomes affordable again. The rich hate being inconvenienced more than anything, and if all these workers moved to cheaper areas they would feel it.
You think only rich people drink coffee and expect to eat off of clean dishes? Really?
Also, what cheaper areas would those be? And why should they have to endure even longer commutes than they already endure?
All of this sounds like you want to punish poor people because they’re poor.
If you’re poor you shouldn’t be getting Starbucks regularly, make your own coffee for cheaper. Cheaper areas are all around, smaller cities across America where your wages stretch farther. Not everyone needs to live in the bay area.
I see, so because people “shouldn’t be” getting Starbucks “regularly,” poor people should commute two hours to get to the job from the apartment they share with five people because that’s all they can afford on the sort of low-wages all such establishments pay. Also, most people can’t make things like caramel macchiatos at home. Because that requires an expensive machine rather than spending a few bucks on coffee, something many people who are not rich can afford.
So this still sounds pretty anti-poor to me. Poor people who work there have to suffer, poor people who want to drink or eat there don’t get to do it.
What kind of world do you live in where Starbucks only have rich clientele who get coffee there every day or every week?
Also, what kind of world do you live in where there also aren’t privately-owned coffee shops?
Good job completely ignoring the point where I said they should move to small cities where they can get a job in the local community and have their wages go farther. I go to college and pay my bills working at a car wash for 15 an hour plus tips. By no means great money but I live within my means and don’t expect to buy overpriced mid coffee. Starbucks works by making poor people think it’s rich people coffee and charging too much for mid drinks, the whole company should go under. Poor people don’t get to do everything they want to do like go out and eat and drink every night, that’s the nature of being poor. Americans need an attitude adjustment and a realization they don’t need to cluster into overpriced cities.
I didn’t ignore it. Expecting the entire service industry of San Francisco to just up and leave is silly, impractical, and they probably can’t afford to since moving is expensive and moving somewhere that you have no guarantee of a job is a good way to end up homeless.
I mean really, you expect a city to function without a service industry? That’s ridiculous.
That’s the point, the people doing the jobs leave, the market fall in turn, and then new people or others return to the lower rates. The only problem is keeping people away the second time around to ensure the process doesn’t need to be repeated. You can move on the cheap, there are ways to do things cheap if you know how.
KingJalopy I hate that you’re being downvoted. I don’t agree with everything you say but you are the only one offering solutions. Everyone else is just doing the “oh I see so people should just…” Followed by taking what you said out of context completely. For what it’s worth I think you’re right about people not being able to afford shit like Starbucks should just make their own, fuck that’s what I do. I don’t do shit I can’t afford because I can’t afford it.
It’s fine. Lemmy is mostly a commie safehaven, i dont really care abt the downvotes it’s just nice watching them seethe.
Nobodies seething talking to the dumb college kid who gets all his political views from daddy.
LOL nobody is as angry as a conservative. Nobody on the planet is so full of hate as a conservative.
Why on Earth do you think “every service worker in San Francisco should just move away and find another job and another home somewhere else” is even feasible?
You are talking about at minimum hundreds of thousands of people. Many of the ones who aren’t homeless (and many of them are homeless) don’t have any form of transportation other than public transportation because they’re too poor to afford a car. Are they supposed to walk to another place to get a job?
Do you think maybe there’s a solution that isn’t cruel to pretty much everyone in San Francisco at any income level, but especially the poor? Is there any solution you can possibly come up with that doesn’t involve making poor people walk out of San Francisco until they get to another place and hope they find a job there?
I highly implore you reread my posts. To clarify again, people who currently cannot afford to live in San Fransisco should not live there. If that includes every Starbucks barista than so be it, but many make ends meet snd live within their means. The extras, or leftovers, who cannot rent a place, and are not making enough to cover rent in the bay area, should move away to places where their wages go farther and they can afford.
people who currently cannot afford to live in San Fransisco should not live there.
Again, how do you expect someone who can’t afford a bus ticket, let alone a car, because their income is really low, to move somewhere else? Because it sill sounds like you expect poor people to walk to another place and hope they can find a job there.
m-p{3}So the Starbucks employee should like in eternal squalor and be grateful to barely make ends meet. But hey, those more fortunate needs their expensive coffee too, that money will trickle down any day now.
Starbucks employees shouldn’t be rich, it’s an entry level food service job. People that make a decent living work better jobs, or are good enough at their starbucks jobs that they become manager and move up the chain to the point they can make a decent living.
Yet they still need the ability to pay their rent to work where they’re needed.
Yes, like in a less expensive area, where the wages they get would go a lot farther.
So you end up with no Starbuck in LA.
This person lives in the middle of nowhere to the extent that it’s surprising that they have internet access. This person has never been near a city of more than 100,000 people and just watches TV nonstop while complaining about how horrible people are who live in different places and in different ways.
Currently in a city of ~330,000. Sitting comfortably and watching youtube.
City lol
You’re not a city until you hit 1m. Until then you’re a large town with an inflated ego.
“You’re not a city until you hit 1m.” So what you’re saying is there are only 9 cities in the entire United States? I think you have your definitions wrong, or you live in New York / Los Angeles and have no clue what most of the US is like.
Good riddance