Pet Rent has been banned in Seattle - Will it be banned elsewhere?

According to the Rental Housing Association of WA :

On December 16, 2016, Mayor Ed Murray signed Council legislation which restricts the total amounts landlords may charge for move-in fees. This legislation took effect January 15, 2017, and enacts the following:

- Pet damage deposits may not exceed 25% of the first full month’s rent, and cannot charge any other fees for the allowing a pet.

- Monthly pet rent is not allowed as a part of any new agreement signed January 15, 2017 or later.


Do you all see this spreading to other cities?


(Thanks to Heather Blume for the heads up)

I see this being challenged fairly soon, as Washington state's constitution prohibits rent control (RCW 35.21.830, for those interested).

It is certainly becoming a lot harder to be a landlord in Seattle; the current city administration is tying our hands on a number of issues. In addition to the pet rent/deposit change, we are no longer able to charge administrative fees, must credit the application fee to the deposit, and must offer up to six months to pay off the deposit(s).

I wonder if you designate certain buildings or floors as pet friendly and put a unit amenity on those, then you're charging the same rent whether someone has a pet or not. That could be a way around this.

I was on board with pet rent as some dogs destroy a home the entire year of living on-site. What surprised me was pet rent on Fish, Reptiles, and Birds. Wow, how things change. The 25% of rent for pet deposit (non-refundable) is enough for pets that may destroy the home.

Responsible pet owners get renters insurance to protect the landlord from damage.

I'd consider requiring that vs pet rent.

Wow--sounds to me like there is a coming shortage in rental housing coming for Seattle, as landlords and investors begin to think its just not worth the hassle.

Having been in this industry for almost 5 decades, I am constantly dismayed at the amount of 'government intervention' in the operations of conventionally financed housing. I am an animal lover, and for many years recommended that we take pets. A huge percentage of Americans have pets, and when owners finally gave in, allowing animals was a huge boost to occupancy.
I am fully aware of the possibility of damage and stand firmly with housing providers that we should be protected financially. This will be interesting to follow. I don't think that because Seattle has put this ban in place that it will quickly spread across the US. Our West Coast friends do set many standards that might/have spread. However, this would be a tough sell.

Yes, I agree with pet damage insurance. Would like to know where an owner can replace carpet for 25% of one months rent?

Totally agree with you. It seems like the word democracy has been forgotten.

Update:

This was overturned by the department in charge of enforcing the new ordinance(s) after a lengthy debate by our local NAA association (go WMFHA!).

Housing providers may charge additional rent for keeping a pet, but it must be recurring RENT charge, not as a recurring or one-time fee.

Pet Rent should be banned everywhere. Pet Deposits should be sufficient. Landlords cannot charge extra rent for children so they came up with this scam to collect extra revenue.

Actually, pet rent is appropriate as pets create additional expense for the property owner with installing and maintaining pet stations and having employees pick up after negligent pet owners. It is also appropriate as only pet owners pay for these additional expenses. Banning pet rent is effectively a rent control measure, and this new ban will probably not survive the pending lawsuit.

Thanks for the update! In Seattle, the city has our hands tied in several ways. Most of the older buildings that we are remodeling require large amounts of money and renovations just keep the heat, lights, and water functional. So when we are renovating the units, it might make sense to protect our investment with renters insurance AND a modest pet rent.