We protect kids because they are people, and we socially recognize that even if a person is potentially more likely to cause damage, there is a public interest in not discriminating against people based on age, or gender, or race.
Dogs are not people. Many in Seattle think their dogs are people, or even prefer dogs over people, but they are not, and they do not enjoy the same protections against discrimination.
If you have never been a landlord, I can see why you would think that "if they damage the property, they pay for it" is a reasonable rule that would work, because if your dog destroyed a door, the carpet, and the blinds, you are likely to be willing (if unhappy) to pay to fix it. If you have been a landlord, you know why this doesn't work, and you would also know why pursuing the damages in court also doesn't work.
(If you are wondering why: people do not pay. Deposits, which they also now capped in Seattle, often don't cover the damage. And suing people who have no money in order to get a judgment that you can't collect on is expensive and pointless.)
This just socializes the cost of pet damage onto everyone, which is why this is populist slop.
(Some of the other junk fees make much more sense: mandatory fees that you have to pay, that are fixed in nature, should just be in the advertised lease price. Think "common area fees" you can't opt out of.)
Adults were kids. Without kids there are no adults. Without adults there is no society. Without pets life is a bit fuller but society goes on as it did before people adopted animals as pets.
If you want to know why big, progressive cities have the most unaffordable housing, look no further than this law.
Eh, I'd be willing to wager it's because those cites are where many high-paying jobs are.
Anyway:
Which, of course, means that non pet owners are now subsidizing pet owners and the damage and wear and tear that pets cause.
Or owners can just quantify and charge for the actual wear and tear? If someone's dog digs up the yard or their claws scrape the up wood floors, just charge them to fix it (or, more likely, take it out of the deposit).
That's why these are often viewed as "junk fees", they charge you for some potential damage vs. any actual damage.
The deposit is also limited. In California, deposit is max one month rent... Not sure how difficult/possible it would be to recover more than that from a renter.
That said pets is likely not the driver of increased housing costa by any means.
Pet rent seldom has anything to do with damage. If you pay pet rent, and then move out and the property manager finds damage, they make you pay for the damage out of your deposit anyway.
The last place I rented had pet rent AND a deposit. The rent definitely a junk fee. It did not accumulate or get tracked.
Which, of course, means that non pet owners are now subsidizing pet owners and the damage and wear and tear that pets cause
But most people don't think that all. And I notice that you ignored all the other fees also...
Anyway there are moral arguments against junk fees other than "cost". Nobody actually wants to live in a world where service providers are constantly sneaking fees into things. It's just unjust and shitty. You and I both know that the only reason landlords include pet fees is because they get away with it, not because it's the only way to recoup losses or something like that.
There is no market incentive to advertise the all-in price of a rental unit. Research by the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research documents individual businesses losing significant market share when switching to all-in pricing. A landlord that advertises an all-in price appears more expensive than competitors with a lower base rent and unbundled fees.
Rental junk fees represent a market failure and collective action problem that will not self-correct. Regulation of these fees is necessary to level the playing field for landlords who are transparent about their costs and protect renters from unpredictable and predatory pricing models.
This legislature requires transparency in pricing. If landlords could that bare minimum of responsibility on their own, it wouldn't have been required.
If you want to know why big, progressive cities have the most unaffordable housing, look no further than this law.
This is an unsubstantiated assertion. I'd want to see evidence that things like this actually move the needle on rent vs things like available housing stock, zoning, etc which seem much more likely to actually impact affordability.
OK so this law, enacted now and not in effect yet, which bans rental fees, is the cause of why big progressive cities that in general do not have this law, have the most unaffordable housing. That's a theory, I guess.
It makes costs more transparent, which means the market works better.
We had legal changes in the UK limiting what fees could be charged to tenants and it had no noticeable effect. The main impact was to stop letting agents charging both landlords and tenants, which reduced what they charge overall.
This is not a comment on more recent changes, or other changes, just those around fees.
Are these unaffordable housing units sitting empty?
If not, then high prices generally comes back to supply and demand, which is driven a lot more by zoning and building restrictions than by small differences in rental law.
Generally cities are expensive because people want to live there, and there is limited space for housing. The US especially has been very restrictive on density in urban and suburban areas compared to counterparts found elsewhere around the world. People wanting to live somewhere and a lack of dense housing for them increases prices.
A lot of arguments against "big, progressive cities" seem to boil down to some form of "See, nobody wants to live in these cities because it's so crowded and expensive!" which doesn't make basic economic sense.
We need a national law and FTC teeth to say "The price advertised is the final, final, all-in price you pay" and the right to demand the product be delivered at that price if you were advertised a price. This should include limits on dynamic pricing which "whoops the price changed for the worse between when we showed it to you and when you drove to the store..."
As an example related to Renting. I once saw a place advertised for rent at a price in my budget. Booked a showing the next day. The dynamic pricing increased it several hundred dollars above my budget. The land lord (company) would not honor the price I booked my showing at. I immediately left saying I do not do business with such dishonest practices.
We also need to ban using the renters as a captured audience for products.
Edit to add:
When I last rented from a big corp I got:
$5 a month semi-mandatory fee on automated payments through their app (as if them handling a check would actually cost them less than an automated payment)
Mandatory internet package through a single provider.
"Resort fee" of $30 a month which was more than the cost of a proximal gym providing 10x the equipment.
Move in charge - $50 just to move in as if I was going to rent but not move in?
Move out charge - $50 just to move out as if I was going to not move out when my lease ended?
I also think rent raises after a year's lease should be limited . Why is the 13th month 100% more as if I'm not a long term renter? It makes some sense for short term rentals but this isnt a 1 month rental, it's a 1 month extension to a long term rent.
I don't have any hope for broad legislation that affects all businesses. Americans are so used to + tax + tips + convenience fees that doing anything else would hurt at both ends: consumers will claim inflation (oh that 8.99+30% burger is now 11.50? Tragedy) and businesses will mourn the loss of scam tactics that lets them earn more.
I think in general my preference is the other part of this story: Rather than choosing what fees can and can't be offered, require both brutal price transparency and prohibit advertising the unrealistic/lesser cost.
A friend of mine has recently lamented the idea gas stations can advertise "with car wash" pricing on top with what is "fine print" on the sign, which looks good but isn't when you factor in the cost of the car wash.
Another favorite is the personal loan ad, saying you're preapproved for a loan as low as 6% APR but actually you can be denied and the loan could be up to 36% APR even if you get approved. Nonsense.
I don't have a huge problem with a discount for car washes but the advertisement should be an out the door price or rate. Similarly I don't mind capped or content-restricted data plans, but the advertised price should be the unlimited one.
I don't think we should decide what businesses can sell, but we should make it very hard to mislead on the ad. Force advertisements to be the highest price instead of the lowest price, and you'll find companies finding ways to remove fees from the table themselves.
Banning junk fees / truth in advertising is good. But I absolutely hate that pet rent was bundled in to this. Pets occasionally cause very high amounts of real damage that should be covered by pet owners, not tenants without pets.
https://wilson.seattle.gov/2026/08/12/in-major-affordability...
https://seattle.legistar.com/ViewReport.ashx?M=R&N=Text&GID=...
If you want to know why big, progressive cities have the most unaffordable housing, look no further than this law.
It bans "pet rent". Which, of course, means that non pet owners are now subsidizing pet owners and the damage and wear and tear that pets cause.
All for what, exactly?
Also, renters of well-behaved, toilet-trained, quiet pets are subsidizing renters with ADHD children.
You don't seem to know what ADHD is.
Shouldn't there be a kid fee then? Kids are likely to cause damage and everyone is subsidizing it.
It should just be common sense. You have a kid or you have a pet. They damaged the property, you pay it.
Probably should be a fee for heavy-handed people banging doors and drawers and faucets around too.
Kids do less damage and there's a stronger argument for subsidizing them than dogs.
Pet rent isn't about directly covering damage; it's more like buying an insurance policy that occasionally covers large pet-necessitated repairs.
Depends on the kid
We protect kids because they are people, and we socially recognize that even if a person is potentially more likely to cause damage, there is a public interest in not discriminating against people based on age, or gender, or race.
Dogs are not people. Many in Seattle think their dogs are people, or even prefer dogs over people, but they are not, and they do not enjoy the same protections against discrimination.
If you have never been a landlord, I can see why you would think that "if they damage the property, they pay for it" is a reasonable rule that would work, because if your dog destroyed a door, the carpet, and the blinds, you are likely to be willing (if unhappy) to pay to fix it. If you have been a landlord, you know why this doesn't work, and you would also know why pursuing the damages in court also doesn't work.
(If you are wondering why: people do not pay. Deposits, which they also now capped in Seattle, often don't cover the damage. And suing people who have no money in order to get a judgment that you can't collect on is expensive and pointless.)
This just socializes the cost of pet damage onto everyone, which is why this is populist slop.
(Some of the other junk fees make much more sense: mandatory fees that you have to pay, that are fixed in nature, should just be in the advertised lease price. Think "common area fees" you can't opt out of.)
Adults were kids. Without kids there are no adults. Without adults there is no society. Without pets life is a bit fuller but society goes on as it did before people adopted animals as pets.
Eh, I'd be willing to wager it's because those cites are where many high-paying jobs are.
Anyway:
Or owners can just quantify and charge for the actual wear and tear? If someone's dog digs up the yard or their claws scrape the up wood floors, just charge them to fix it (or, more likely, take it out of the deposit).
That's why these are often viewed as "junk fees", they charge you for some potential damage vs. any actual damage.
The deposit is also limited. In California, deposit is max one month rent... Not sure how difficult/possible it would be to recover more than that from a renter.
That said pets is likely not the driver of increased housing costa by any means.
How successful do you think landlords are at recovering damage costs from former tenants that aren't covered by the deposit?
Pet rent seldom has anything to do with damage. If you pay pet rent, and then move out and the property manager finds damage, they make you pay for the damage out of your deposit anyway.
The last place I rented had pet rent AND a deposit. The rent definitely a junk fee. It did not accumulate or get tracked.
Does Seattle allow pet deposits? That seems like a straightforward way to handle that, and it's what I've seen when renting elsewhere.
It does not. Total deposit is capped at a single month's rent.
Well that's if you believe
But most people don't think that all. And I notice that you ignored all the other fees also...
Anyway there are moral arguments against junk fees other than "cost". Nobody actually wants to live in a world where service providers are constantly sneaking fees into things. It's just unjust and shitty. You and I both know that the only reason landlords include pet fees is because they get away with it, not because it's the only way to recoup losses or something like that.
From the legislature:
This legislature requires transparency in pricing. If landlords could that bare minimum of responsibility on their own, it wouldn't have been required.
Oh, and pet damage deposits are still legal.
This is an unsubstantiated assertion. I'd want to see evidence that things like this actually move the needle on rent vs things like available housing stock, zoning, etc which seem much more likely to actually impact affordability.
OK so this law, enacted now and not in effect yet, which bans rental fees, is the cause of why big progressive cities that in general do not have this law, have the most unaffordable housing. That's a theory, I guess.
It makes costs more transparent, which means the market works better.
We had legal changes in the UK limiting what fees could be charged to tenants and it had no noticeable effect. The main impact was to stop letting agents charging both landlords and tenants, which reduced what they charge overall.
This is not a comment on more recent changes, or other changes, just those around fees.
Are these unaffordable housing units sitting empty?
If not, then high prices generally comes back to supply and demand, which is driven a lot more by zoning and building restrictions than by small differences in rental law.
Generally cities are expensive because people want to live there, and there is limited space for housing. The US especially has been very restrictive on density in urban and suburban areas compared to counterparts found elsewhere around the world. People wanting to live somewhere and a lack of dense housing for them increases prices.
A lot of arguments against "big, progressive cities" seem to boil down to some form of "See, nobody wants to live in these cities because it's so crowded and expensive!" which doesn't make basic economic sense.
We need a national law and FTC teeth to say "The price advertised is the final, final, all-in price you pay" and the right to demand the product be delivered at that price if you were advertised a price. This should include limits on dynamic pricing which "whoops the price changed for the worse between when we showed it to you and when you drove to the store..."
As an example related to Renting. I once saw a place advertised for rent at a price in my budget. Booked a showing the next day. The dynamic pricing increased it several hundred dollars above my budget. The land lord (company) would not honor the price I booked my showing at. I immediately left saying I do not do business with such dishonest practices.
We also need to ban using the renters as a captured audience for products.
Edit to add:
When I last rented from a big corp I got:
$5 a month semi-mandatory fee on automated payments through their app (as if them handling a check would actually cost them less than an automated payment)
Mandatory internet package through a single provider.
"Resort fee" of $30 a month which was more than the cost of a proximal gym providing 10x the equipment.
Move in charge - $50 just to move in as if I was going to rent but not move in?
Move out charge - $50 just to move out as if I was going to not move out when my lease ended?
I also think rent raises after a year's lease should be limited . Why is the 13th month 100% more as if I'm not a long term renter? It makes some sense for short term rentals but this isnt a 1 month rental, it's a 1 month extension to a long term rent.
I don't have any hope for broad legislation that affects all businesses. Americans are so used to + tax + tips + convenience fees that doing anything else would hurt at both ends: consumers will claim inflation (oh that 8.99+30% burger is now 11.50? Tragedy) and businesses will mourn the loss of scam tactics that lets them earn more.
Until Congressional and Executive regime change, you should expect local efforts to be more effective in the interim. Focus there until regime change.
I think in general my preference is the other part of this story: Rather than choosing what fees can and can't be offered, require both brutal price transparency and prohibit advertising the unrealistic/lesser cost.
A friend of mine has recently lamented the idea gas stations can advertise "with car wash" pricing on top with what is "fine print" on the sign, which looks good but isn't when you factor in the cost of the car wash.
Another favorite is the personal loan ad, saying you're preapproved for a loan as low as 6% APR but actually you can be denied and the loan could be up to 36% APR even if you get approved. Nonsense.
I don't have a huge problem with a discount for car washes but the advertisement should be an out the door price or rate. Similarly I don't mind capped or content-restricted data plans, but the advertised price should be the unlimited one.
I don't think we should decide what businesses can sell, but we should make it very hard to mislead on the ad. Force advertisements to be the highest price instead of the lowest price, and you'll find companies finding ways to remove fees from the table themselves.
We need a global ban on junk fees. I am tired of shit like AT&T's "Administrative & Regulatory Cost Recovery Fee".
You can't compare if you don't know the cost, if you can't compare it is hard for the invisible hand to price the market.
Price transparency makes more efficient markets.
Banning junk fees / truth in advertising is good. But I absolutely hate that pet rent was bundled in to this. Pets occasionally cause very high amounts of real damage that should be covered by pet owners, not tenants without pets.