Hacker News Reader

Comment by doublerebel | Hacker News Reader

Yes this will absolutely raise rents for everyone in order to cover pet damage costs, which can easily reach thousands, exceeding any profit for the lease term. They are the top cause of rental unit damage.

Many smaller landlords will choose to exclude pets entirely in order to keep rental rates competitive.

(I have worked in housing in Seattle and have seen this first hand. And I love pets, have them myself!)

View on HN

If you worked in housing in Seattle you would know it's not really legal or practicable for landlords to exclude pets, considering the expansiveness of ESA designations. Almost every landlord already excludes pets outside of ESAs

Yes and the ESA program is unfortunately regularly abused. Without judging tenants, I know multiple people from my personal network who proudly got the ESA designation simply to get around the rule.

There are numerous pet-friendly landlords, but typically the rent is not cheap. Pets have a real cost — they aren’t cheap for the owner, I don’t know why the owner assumes they don’t add cost to their living situation.

The main complaint seems to be that there is not a glut of cheap pet-friendly rentals, which is an unrealistic expectation in Seattle where the housing market is already extremely competitive.

> Many smaller landlords will choose to exclude pets

That would be amazing! Imagine no poop and no smell! And no barking!

And no subsidizing others peoples farm animals!

Funny how "pets" does not usually include rabbits, mouse, aquarium fish or snakes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com