SACRAMENTO, CA – Assemblymember Matt Haney’s (D-San Francisco) AB 2216 is now one step closer to becoming law after passing out of the Assembly Judiciary Committee. It’s now headed to the Assembly Floor.
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.
“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.”
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 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.
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.
Previous:
- Feb 20 – Bill Stops Landlords from Denying Housing to Tenants with Pets
- Feb 14, 2024 – Concord City Council Votes to Introduce Ordinance on Rent Stabilization, Just Cause
- Oct 11, 2023 – Bill to Ban Expensive Security Deposits Signed by Governor
- Sept. 23, 2023 – New California Renters’ Caucus Gets all Five of its Priority Bills to Governor’s Desk
- Aug 24, 2023 – Antioch City Council Approves Rent Stabilization Ordinance
13 comments
Haney lives in the same fantasy world as Wiener. Has it ever occurred to him to ponder WHY so many landlords – particularly in large complexes – do not allow pets. They and their often irresponsible owners bring significant problems.
Let me get this straight. Only after I’ve approved someone as a tenant, it is then that I find out they’re bringing their three dogs with them? Taking away the ability of a property owner to keep their rental property and its landscaping in a clean and attractive state is wrong.
As a former public servant I’ve been inside plenty of rental homes and apartments and at times have been shocked at what can transpire in these homes. I’ve actually seen raised rabbit cages indoors with nothing below the cage to collect the rabbit turds that were falling to the carpet, now about an inch deep. I remember going to a fire in an apartment complex and having to knock on adjacent doors to notify tenants. When one door opened in response to my knock I was so overcome by the smell of urine from cats that I had to step back even further than the the 4 foot distance that I was already at. And then theres all the scratching on doors and such that anxious dogs do while the owner is at work.
I’m guessing that property owners will develop ways to discern who is a pet owner and who isn’t.
Might even be a simple method like meeting the potential tenant at the rental and then casually walking them out to their car. Pet hair inside, window smudges from tongues, etc.
The more you mess with landlords the more they’ll push back. Landlords have the power. These politicians just want to sound important.
So landlord’s carry not only the burden of cleaning up after irresponsible pet owners, they will also be forced to increase their property liability insurance! I case the tenants pet bites or injures someone on their property! So there goes another rent increase people.:-(
A deposit must be required. Is my own pet damages my property I get to pay for that. Anyone renting should also have to pay for pet damages. A pet deposit is more than reasonable. Part of pet ownership is being responsible. Don’t have a pet if you’re not going to be willing to pay for the damages.
It’s apparent that Matt is not a landlord in California. They reduced the amount we can take as a deposit and then are also requiring us to take pets, a terrible combination for the owner of the property! I allowed a cat from my last tenant, but then she brought in two dogs who barked all day and night disturbing the neighboring tenant, and then they also chewed on all of the baseboard corners and scratched all the doors. One months’ rent as a security deposit does not cover the damage. If you think renters insurance is the answer, filing a claim takes time! Time to repair damage, file a claim, loss of a quick turnaround and thus loss of rent, who pays for that? From what I’m hearing part of this bill includes the inability for owners to charge a pet deposit or additional fees for pets too. This is just encouraging the large corps to take over housing and pushing out mom and pop landlords, where having to spend 5k plus to repair and turnover a unit is a major hit. How can we keep rents low with this!!!!
We had one of our tenants sneak two dogs in to one of our duplexes which I happen to see her placing the dogs into her vehicle. We issued a warning letter for violation of the lease agreement
and were assured the dogs were gone. A couple of months later the painter alerted us that the tenants dogs were harassing him. We had just replaced all the carpet throughout prior to this rental. The tenant was aware of the no pet policy without prior approval. We evicted her only to find that she never let the dogs out so the carpet was their litter box. When we tried to salvage the carpet we were told it was beyond the point of no return that the urine was everywhere and all the way through the padding and into the subfloor. The one months security deposit didn’t come close to covering the damage and trying to collect from the renter after the fact becomes an impossibility. If they don’t own it they really don’t care what their pets destroy.
As someone from SF he should be more concerned with what is happening on the city streets than a landlords right to protect their investment. Does he not recall Diane Whipple? That alone should be enough to allow land OWNERS to set their own rules?
Just a thought…
MAYBE ANYONE WHO WORKS FOR THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE ALOUND TO BRING THEIR PETS ANY KIND TO WORK WITH THEM… NO MATER WHAT THEIR JOB IS. YES I AM A LANDLORD.
THIS WILL LET THE GOVERNMENT KNOW HOW THIS AFFECTS US LANDLORDS
I think the Constitution, 5th Amendment, says the government cannot take my property without just compensation. So, if the government wants to give use of my property to pets then the government can pay for the privilege.
Im all for these regulations. Maybe it stop foreign investors from buying properties simply to lease out. Regulations like these bring it on!!!! LOL with regulations like this who would want to be a landlord in California.
So who pays for cancelled insurance policies resultant from restricted breeds that can’t be vetted beforehand? Any new policies will likely cost more.
Shortsighted and will result in higher rent to offset risk.
So who pays for cancelled insurance policies resultant from restricted breeds that can’t be vetted beforehand? Any new policies will likely cost more.
Shortsighted and will result in higher rent to offset risk.
Sound policies lol