this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2024
511 points (97.1% liked)

politics

19159 readers
5938 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] yeather@lemmy.ca 163 points 8 months ago (12 children)

“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.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 100 points 8 months ago (2 children)

You should instead be asking why they chose an obvious outlier to represent pet owners. That one lady has 10+ pets doesn't change that 2/3rds of families have pets and only 20% of rental housing allows cats and dogs of all sizes.

[–] yeather@lemmy.ca 24 points 8 months ago

It’s a very odd choice.

[–] Wrench@lemmy.world 20 points 8 months ago (6 children)

I am a renter with pets, and don't think landlords should be forced to accept renters with pets.

I also acknowledge that pets can do an insane amount of damage to a property if not properly cared for.

I helped my brother repair the damage from a squatter (long story) after he allowed 4 dogs to completely destroy the interior. We were sanding pee saturated studs and priming over them, after ripping out all of the drywall, just to try to defeat the stink.

That's more damage than any plausible pet deposit can hope to cover. It was absolutely disgusting.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 31 points 8 months ago (14 children)

People can also cause insane amounts of damage, that doesn't mean it's the norm. I'm sorry about your brother's property, but that's not a reason to allow banning of pets. Nightmare tenants (or squatters) exist, it's just the gamble taken for renting out an investment property. Most pet owners take care of their pets and have no serious problems, after all, they're actually living with the results of their pet care.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] JamesTBagg@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago (7 children)

Again, that's an outlier and an anecdote.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 59 points 8 months ago (61 children)

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.

load more comments (61 replies)
[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago

I mean, a fish is pretty negligible in this case, but yeah. There's no way that 4 dogs and 7 cats are being given an acceptable quality of life in a rental. Honestly, I take issue with dogs in apartments, point blank, as conforversial of an opinion as I'm sure that is. The cherry on top is the bird, which tells me everything I need to know about this woman.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 61 points 8 months ago (4 children)

Sure. Because doing something about landlords charging way too much for rent would help too many people.

[–] NevermindNoMind@lemmy.world 47 points 8 months ago (8 children)

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.

[–] elooto@lemmy.ml 14 points 8 months ago

Love this take. Thank you!

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] stoly@lemmy.world 18 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Amazingly we can have multiple conversations at once.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] csm10495@sh.itjust.works 45 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Please outlaw pet rent. I get a refundable deposit, but pet rent is bullshit.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MSids@lemmy.world 42 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (12 children)

Yo, every pet owner on the planet thinks their pet is perfect and its like pretty much almost never the case. Pet owners will downvote me, but that piece of chewed trim is not cute. Property damage to rentals caused by pets also keeps property vacant between renters for repairs.

[–] queue@lemmy.blahaj.zone 30 points 8 months ago (2 children)

So the landlord will use the money from the rent to personally hand repair that furniture himself, right? He won't just jack up the price and hire a cheap fixture repair place, right?

[–] kcuf@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago (2 children)

It's not just furniture, piss soaking into the floor for extended periods of time can require work to fix. I bought a house that had a renter with a large dog and I had to rip up the floor to find the spot soaked through to the subfloor where the dog always peed during the day while the owner was out, it reaked.

[–] echo64@lemmy.world 23 points 8 months ago (11 children)

Okay. That would happen if you bought from a non renter too. Pets are a part lf the human experience and humans need housing. Landlords can live with the costs or sell up so people can buy.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] june@lemmy.world 24 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Well, the only thing my dog did was start to lose her bladder control before I put her down. But she managed to make it to the pee pad every time even then.

Not all dogs bro. My girl was perfect. Didn’t even bark. I’ll probably never find another one like her though.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] BertramDitore@lemmy.world 38 points 8 months ago (5 children)

One of the things that has prevented me from finding a new apartment is my cat. Been on the market for ages, and 90% of listings are automatically off the table because they don’t allow pets. It’s an extremely common restriction. This would be a huge win. Obviously doesn’t solve any of the more important problems with landlords and excessive rates; but it’s definitely something that a lot of people would notice and benefit from.

[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago (1 children)

This is so weird. Around where I live most apartments accept pets up to, usually, 50lbs with a pet deposit and only bar certain breeds. Some have quantity restriction as well but very few won't accept pets at all.

[–] Mog_fanatic@lemmy.world 13 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Trust me it's not weird at all. I've lived in bigger cities in nine states, every single one of those had severe limitations when it came to any pets unless they were fish. Some areas are more lenient than others but I had a hell of a time finding a place that would except a medium sized dog in every single city and never once did I not pay an additional deposit as well as additional "pet rent"

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] asteriskeverything@lemmy.world 31 points 8 months ago

“When you put them all into a package, it’s so rife with possibilities for errors on the part of the landlord,” Gulbransen said. “That makes people think twice about renting out that empty unit.”

Oh no.

Plus, she said the state already has laws in place to protect renters with disabilities or mental health issues who rely on emotional support or service animals.

Oh, well since they are already bending over backwards following ADA guidelines obviously that's argument enough

Btw to those who didn't read the article, it also mentions how a lot of pets are surrendered because the owners couldn't find housing that accommodates them.

[–] kcuf@lemmy.world 24 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I assume this (and really any extra mandates for landlords) is going to drive more small/private landlords out of the business, and that won't necessarily increase housing availability on its own, but will instead be filled by larger corporate landlords that can afford to deal with administrative work required. As I've gotten older, I've found small landlords to be where you can find the best experience (but also maybe the worst, it's more variable), having just corporate landlords feels like you'll always get a shittier place (minimal work done) for market rates.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CptEnder@lemmy.world 22 points 8 months ago

Lmao ITT: cats and dogs have evolved next to humans for thousands of years

Commentor: well that's the first I've heard of this, they probably don't even tip their landlord!

[–] Pietson@kbin.social 12 points 8 months ago (1 children)

In Belgium landlords can't prohibit pets. In reality they often say pets aren't allowed anyways, but if you keep quiet until after everything is signed they can't really do anything about it. Of course pissing off your landlord by doing something they specifically requested you avoid isn't going to keep them on good terms, and if it's an option, finding a home that allows them is better.

Of course this law only applies to pets that are suitable for the space. If you keep a massive dog in a tiny studio appartment you might find yourself in legal hot water, but something like a cat should never be an issue.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] llamapocalypse@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Granted I'm not in California, but is this actually an issue? As someone with fairly intense dog/cat allergies it's actually been really hard to find NON-pet-friendly places to rent - those seem to be the exception rather than the rule.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 9 points 8 months ago

It seems like different areas of the country have different rental "cultures". Where I live now it's incredibly difficult to find a pet-friendly apartment, with or without any sort of fee or deposit. And most locals think it's normal and well justified. In the places I've lived previously it was mostly just restrictions on large dogs or reasonable limits to the number of pets. I've spent my entire life around pets (both my own and those of family/roommates). It feels VERY weird to me that the many people here don't consider owning pets a normal lifestyle choice many people make even if they're not in a position to own their own home.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›