Democrats in the California Assembly are pushing a bill that critics say would harm renters who pay higher rents by imposing restrictions on landlords.
“This is going to cause real havoc for California renters,” Daniel Yukelson of the Greater Los Angeles Apartment Association told Blaze News about Assembly Bill 1266.
AB 1266 would restrict landlords from asking potential renters if they have pets and prohibit them from requiring pet deposits to cover the potential cost of damage caused by pets. Coverage of the bill in mainstream media has been largely positive, ignoring criticism from housing experts that the bill is likely to lead to higher rent prices and other harmful consequences.
The bill, authored by California Assemblyman Matt Haney, a Democrat, would allow landlords to restrict pets in their units and require a deposit to cover potential damage to pets. They argue that it is unfair to the owners of the animals.
“The law should not allow a two-tiered system that imposes penalties or special treatment for the mere act of owning a pet, or that imposes a burden on people just because of that.” Said Honey to KQED-TV.
Opponents of the bill say it will only worsen California’s housing crisis.
Yukelson outlined a number of ways this bill could negatively impact housing availability in California by imposing new restrictions on housing providers.
One of his big concerns is how the proposed bill would make it harder for property owners to get affordable insurance. He noted that in California, insurance companies have already raised premiums or cut coverage altogether. Forcing all landlords to accept pets would create further complications that would harm tenants in the long run.
“In many cases, they don’t even renew. This only adds insult to injury, because insurance companies exclude all pet liability coverage if we are forced to take in these animals. Because we’re going to do it,” Yukelson explained. .
He also said many rental properties lack lawns or other outdoor accommodations for pets, making them unsuitable for pet owners. The new law requires property owners to allow pets, regardless of whether the property allows pets.
“Please smell this photo.”
Sacramento-based real estate agent Erin Stumpf criticized the proposal by posting photos of excessive damage caused to rental homes by pets, which she said amounted to up to several thousand properties. .
“Please don’t limit housing providers’ ability to refuse pets,” Stumpf posted on X (formerly Twitter).
“Pets can cause hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages,” she added. “Maybe you’ll understand if you smell this photo.”
Stumpf elaborated on his claims in a statement to Blaze News. He said additional restrictions would only add further pressure to increase rental requirements.
“As a rental property owner myself, I would probably be more likely to impose even more stringent minimum credit score and income qualifications on potential renters if I had to accept a pet,” she says. wrote. “Pets can do very harmful things, such as digging, biting, and urinating. That’s why, as a rental housing provider, we are forced to rent to tenants with pets. If you do, you want to make sure you only rent to the absolute most suitable person: a responsible tenant with sufficient income and assets who can expect to recover the cost of pet damage when they move out. ”
Yukelson added that the bill could force people with allergic reactions to pets to live in units next to pet owners.
Other groups, including the California Apartment Association and the Southern California Rental Housing Association, expressed similar concerns.
“It’s simple economics.”
Haney argued that the PET Act is aimed at alleviating the housing crisis.
“We will not solve the housing crisis if we leave pet owners, who make up the majority of tenants, without any protection,” Haney said. “This is simply about access to housing.”
Yukelson explains why the new proposals, on top of decades of overregulation, will make the housing crisis even worse.
“This is just another straw that breaks the camel’s back. People are getting out of business these days. They can’t afford to be in business, they can’t take it anymore. There are multiple layers of regulation,” he said. said. he continued.
“And lawmakers sit back and wonder, ‘Why is there a housing shortage? Why do we have the worst homelessness situation in the country? Why are rents soaring?'” Yukelson added.
“Well, it’s simple economics,” he concluded. “We don’t have enough housing for people. And the policies we’ve had in place for more than 40 years aren’t working. At least those property owners have a chance to fight to stay in business. There needs to be a balance”! That’s crazy! ”
The law is believed to be the first of its kind in the United States, but opponents fear it will spread to other states. The bill passed the Judiciary Committee and is now before the House.
Yukelson acknowledged that Haney’s office is trying to come up with a compromise to answer some of the criticisms, including potentially increasing bond limits.
He revealed one of the benefits of political mismanagement in California.
“The only thing we can do to help housing is have people leave California in droves, but it’s all taxpayers!” he joked.
Haney’s office did not respond to requests for comment from Blaze News.
Do you like Blaze News? Avoid censorship and sign up for our newsletter to get articles like this delivered straight to your inbox. Please register here!
