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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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