A bill was introduced in Congress on Tuesday that would repeal all unconditional pet bans in rental units in California. The bill also requires a reasonable excuse for not allowing pets in a rental property.
Assembly Bill 2216, authored by Rep. Matt Haney (D-San Francisco), would specifically require landlords to have a reasonable excuse for not allowing pets in rental units, and only after a tenant's application has been approved. Allow us to ask about pet ownership.
Representative Haney authored the bill because of the connection between pet ownership and California's housing crisis. Specifically, he noted that of the 17 million families and individuals who rent in the state, nearly 12 million, or nearly 70 percent, are pet owners. However, only about 30% of rental properties in the state allow pets, while in San Francisco only 21% of rental properties allow pets and in Los Angeles, only 26% allow pets.
Haney said current laws mean prospective tenants are either forced to bring in pets illegally and face damages charges, pay high pet fees, or give up on finding a suitable apartment. They claim they are forced to either surrender their pets to shelters or surrender them. A survey of 240 California-based shelters found that 67,881 pets were surrendered by their owners, with inadequate living facilities being the leading cause of abandonment.
“One of the key strategies to address the housing crisis is to build more housing,” Haney said in a statement. “We have to keep building housing faster, but when 12 million people across the state are being denied access to that housing because they have pets, we have to continue to build housing faster, but when we have to solve this crisis The vast majority of renters in our state – pet owners – are being denied access to most rental units. It makes no sense at all and is dramatically exacerbating the housing crisis. Whether we like it or not, humans have pets, always have had pets, and will always have pets. With a blanket no-pet policy, landlords are losing out on good tenants. , are being turned away without even having the chance to apply for a place to live. The current system is bad for everyone.”
The Humane Society also supported the bill, with California HS Secretary Jenny Berg adding: family. Housing is a fundamental right and should not be restricted, as renters are forced to choose between having a pet or a roof over their head. As we have demonstrated through our past legislative efforts, HSUS supports removing barriers to access to housing, such as unnecessary and unreasonable pet restrictions, and along with Congressman Haney, he supported AB 2216. We are proud to sponsor you. ”
Violent opposition to AB 2216
But despite some support when the bill was introduced, landlord and rental groups, as well as some tenant groups, were outraged over the bill.
“Haney is off his rocker,” Los Angeles apartment complex owner David Wu told the Globe on Wednesday. “Pets can cause damage. There may be people with dog allergies in other parts of the apartment. There is a problem with noise complaints from animals making noise, and in some areas there are complaints about dogs. The law is in place. There are many reasons why landlords like me don't allow pets. This bill takes away our right to protect our property. It's the owner's property, so it's up to the owner to decide. Yes, we need the right to sue and evict tenants who lie about their pets, for safety reasons as I said earlier.”
“This bill will only cause more problems,” said Alan King, owner of a local San Jose landlord association. “Some units are so small that if a tenant has a large dog, they don't have the space they need. Otherwise, it could be animal cruelty for a tenant to keep a dog in a crate all day. Did this guy even consider the size of the apartment? Or was it consideration for the neighbors?”
Some told the Globe that AB 2216 likely has a number of loopholes.
“What's going to happen is that pet fees are going to be exorbitant in places that don't want dogs, cats, etc.,” said Kylie Warner, owner of a tenant screening company. “If they are not allowed to ask about pets, then all that is needed is a simple conversation about the fee for them to volunteer to say whether or not they want to bring a pet. High fees are not allowed for tenants who keep pets. This bill leaves open the possibility of clauses in tenancy agreements that impose hefty fines for people who bring pets in without the landlord's knowledge.”
“Oh, your application was approved? Do you have a pet? Well, pets are so-and-so per month. Oh, there is no limit on your bill, so the pet fee is payable per pet for each unit.” All this bill is going to do is force landlords to change the language in their rental agreements and impose higher and different fines and fees accordingly. If you're really serious about it. An incentive for state and local governments to allow pet ownership, such as a tax break or something, would be more effective.
AB 2216 is expected to be considered in a congressional committee soon.
