Bill Stops Landlords from Denying Housing to Tenants with Pets

AB 2216 requires landlords to have reasonable reasons for denying pet owning tenants housing

SACRAMENTO, CA – The chair of the California Legislative Renters Caucus, Matt Haney (D-San Francisco) has introduced legislation that prohibits blanket pet bans in rental units in California. AB 2216 will require landlords to have reasonable reason(s) for not allowing a pet in a rental unit and only allows landlords to ask about pet ownership after a tenant’s application has been approved.

California has the second highest number of tenants in the country, with 17 million families and individuals renting — close to 12 million, or 70% of these renters are pet owners. Unfortunately only under current law only 30% of available rentals in any given city are pet friendly. In San Francisco only 21% of the available rentals currently on the market allow for pets. Similarly, despite having close to 3 million pet owning renters, only 26% of Los Angeles rentals allow for pets.

“One of our main strategies to address the housing crisis has been building more housing,” said Assemblymember Haney. “We have to keep building housing, and much faster, but we won’t be able to solve this crisis if 12 million people across the state are being denied access to that housing because they have a companion pet.  The majority of renters in our state, pet owners, are denied access to the majority of rental units. That makes no sense at all and it’s dramatically exacerbating the housing crisis.”

The lack of pet friendly housing is causing more than 829,000 tenants to have pets in their units without the knowledge of their landlord. This leaves landlords without adequate coverage for potential damages that could be mitigated if they knew their tenants had a pet such as pet insurance, or reasonable pet restrictions.

“My partner and I searched for over a month for a 2 bedroom rental unit that would allow for my small cattle dog mix,” said Andrea Amavisca, a Sacramento resident. “Landlords that initially liked our application would suddenly stop answering our calls once they found out we had a dog. Or others would require a pet deposit close to $1,000 that would put the unit totally out of our budget. Every rental had a different pet policy with fees that varied based on discretion. It felt unfair.”

“Like it or not humans have pets, they always have and they always will,” said Haney. “Blanket no companion pet policies are causing landlords to miss out on good tenants who get rejected without even getting a chance to apply for a place to live. The current system is bad for everyone.”

“Along with millions of pet owners across California, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) firmly believes that household pets are an integral part of our families.  Housing is a fundamental right that should not be limited because tenants are forced to choose between keeping their pet or putting a roof over their head,” said Jenny Berg, California State Director of the Humane Society of the United States. “As we’ve shown through our prior legislative efforts, HSUS supports removing barriers to accessing housing, like unnecessary and unwarranted pet restrictions, and are proud to sponsor AB 2216 with Assemblymember Haney.”

Many tenants are being forced to surrender their pets to already overrun shelters that don’t have adequate resources to take care of more animals. A survey of 240 California based shelters revealed that 67,881 pets were surrendered by their owners, with the leading cause being a lack of access to pet friendly housing.


Related posts

AG Bonta Releases California Criminal Justice Statistical Reports for 2023

Governor Newsom and Fire Officials Talk Peak Wildfire Season

California Ballot Propositions on the November Ballot


Mindless Politicians February 20, 2024 - 3:10 pm
These legislators have lost their minds creating all these bills to tie the hand of landlords and property owners and only giving considerations to tenants. Folks have a right to decide whether they want animals living in their property and to freely without fear of repercussions decide who moves in. What are they going to legislate next. SMH!
Two Wheeler February 20, 2024 - 4:51 pm
My house to rent. My Matt Haney, let me leave a bunch of wild pets in a home you own. Clown.
Frank February 20, 2024 - 5:58 pm
Mr. Haney has no clue what landlords go through. When the little puppy turns out to be a Mastiff and tears everything up to is high as it can stand. Or the cat that pisses all over the place to where you have to replace some sub floor along with carpet. Not to mention some drywall. All this costs thousands of dollars. So is he OK with a 5k or 10k deposit for pets? Another stupid bill against landlords.
Pattyofurniture February 20, 2024 - 7:37 pm
What if the tenants ARE the animals? I sure saw this when my dad rented out our house. Completely trashed in less than a year. It had to be gutted and refurbished. But hey, F the landlord who's trying to make a smart business decision by not allowing pets, right? Its California right? By the way, is housing written into the Bill of Rights or CA constitution as a right? Because boy, between Skid Row, SF, Oakland, Antioch etc. it sure seems like lip service. We work so that we don't starve, and have a roof over our heads. If the Dems truly had their way with all these stupid feel good bills they come up we would work AND starve. Damn socialists.
Robert February 20, 2024 - 8:48 pm
The hell with Haney if a person chooses to have a pet the landlord can choose not to rent to them! Pets piss in people's homes that's a fact...not every cat or dog but more do than don't. Now a land lord wouldn't be able to charge a deposit??? Yep san Francisco insanity at its bedt
MODERATE February 21, 2024 - 5:16 am
Haney is second only to Wiener in the "stupid legislation" race. The result of this, of course, would be to shift the cost burden of tenant-owned pets and the problems that result from that onto ALL tenants in the form of higher rent. These crazies always introduce such bills and choose to ignore the rather obvious consequences.

Comments are closed.

Add Comment