"Pet owners in Oakland have often struggled to find apartments that don’t charge extra fees, or even allow pets at all, but the new bill introduced by Assembly Member Matt Haney could potentially change that."--Lilah Aparton, 6th grade
Pet owners in Oakland have often struggled to find apartments that don’t charge extra fees, or even allow pets at all, but the new bill introduced by Assembly Member Matt Haney could potentially change that.
According to ABC-7 news, “Assembly Bill 2216, introduced Tuesday by Assembly member Matt Haney, Dem, San Francisco, would prohibit landlords from having blanket policies against renting to pet owners. It would also prohibit landlords from asking about a renter's pets until after their application was approved.” It is estimated that around 232,000 dogs live in San Francisco, and this will only continue to increase.
If the bill passes, tenants with common household pets won’t be denied housing and won’t have to pay “pet rent,” a series of extra fees for the tenant's pet to be allowed in the apartment. Yasamin Salari, Matt Haney’s legislative aide says, “If the bill passes it will make it easier for pet owning tenants to find housing and landlords won’t be able to have blanket pet policies anymore.”
Only a minority of landlords allow dogs at all. One in 5 rentals in Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose allow large dogs. Meanwhile, half of all Oakland rentals allow cats.
“Seventy percent of California renters have pets but only 30% of available rentals accept them,” says Assembly member Matt Haney. And according to Petsandhousing.org, 72% of renters report that pet-friendly housing is hard to find. This has caused a large population of the Bay Area to give up their pets to shelters in order to secure housing.
The bill, AB 2216 is currently in the process of becoming law, although that is undecided. Yasamin says, “AB 2216 is currently a spot bill so we will be amending in substantive language soon that details the specifics of the bill. Then it will sit in the Assembly Rules Committee for about a month then it will get referred to policy committees.” If the bill becomes law then all policies regarding pet rent will no longer be allowed.
“This bill will alleviate the housing crisis by making it easier for people to get into adequate housing,” Yasamin says. “A lot of times people are not willing to part ways with their pets to get into housing, so this bill will remove that barrier.”
While some support the bill, members of the CAA (California Apartment Association) are against it. In an article from KQED, Krista Gulbransen, director of the Berkeley Apartment Association (BAA) said, “Pets have the potential to damage property… and limiting owners’ discretion to take on that added risk while stripping them of the pet deposit safeguard puts them in a terrible position.”
Meanwhile, Jordan Karnes, a teacher in the Literary Arts department and a pet owner who struggled to find apartments that accept pets says, “I’ve been in a situation where me and my ex got a letter from our therapist saying our dog was an emotional support animal, and our landlord would constantly fight us on it, he would deny the letters we sent from the therapist. Essentially what he was doing was harassment, and eventually we left because of it.”
Landlords would have to have a reasonable reason to deny a pet owner and if pets cause damage to the apartment, it can cause thousands of dollars in damage. An article on abc7 reported that, “Debra Carlton, CAA's executive vice president of state government affairs said: ‘The bill does not allow for an increase in security deposits, potentially limiting landlords’ ability to cover pet-related damages.’”
Karnes says, “Even some of my friends had to deal with the struggles of finding an apartment that allows pets, when they got accepted for an apartment they disclosed they had cats and just because of that they got treated very poorly and were guilted into paying pet rent. So it really feels like this insane double standard.”
Many have conflicting views on the situation. But these policies can leave tenants without pets or even unhoused.
According to ABC-7 news, “Assembly Bill 2216, introduced Tuesday by Assembly member Matt Haney, Dem, San Francisco, would prohibit landlords from having blanket policies against renting to pet owners. It would also prohibit landlords from asking about a renter's pets until after their application was approved.” It is estimated that around 232,000 dogs live in San Francisco, and this will only continue to increase.
If the bill passes, tenants with common household pets won’t be denied housing and won’t have to pay “pet rent,” a series of extra fees for the tenant's pet to be allowed in the apartment. Yasamin Salari, Matt Haney’s legislative aide says, “If the bill passes it will make it easier for pet owning tenants to find housing and landlords won’t be able to have blanket pet policies anymore.”
Only a minority of landlords allow dogs at all. One in 5 rentals in Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose allow large dogs. Meanwhile, half of all Oakland rentals allow cats.
“Seventy percent of California renters have pets but only 30% of available rentals accept them,” says Assembly member Matt Haney. And according to Petsandhousing.org, 72% of renters report that pet-friendly housing is hard to find. This has caused a large population of the Bay Area to give up their pets to shelters in order to secure housing.
The bill, AB 2216 is currently in the process of becoming law, although that is undecided. Yasamin says, “AB 2216 is currently a spot bill so we will be amending in substantive language soon that details the specifics of the bill. Then it will sit in the Assembly Rules Committee for about a month then it will get referred to policy committees.” If the bill becomes law then all policies regarding pet rent will no longer be allowed.
“This bill will alleviate the housing crisis by making it easier for people to get into adequate housing,” Yasamin says. “A lot of times people are not willing to part ways with their pets to get into housing, so this bill will remove that barrier.”
While some support the bill, members of the CAA (California Apartment Association) are against it. In an article from KQED, Krista Gulbransen, director of the Berkeley Apartment Association (BAA) said, “Pets have the potential to damage property… and limiting owners’ discretion to take on that added risk while stripping them of the pet deposit safeguard puts them in a terrible position.”
Meanwhile, Jordan Karnes, a teacher in the Literary Arts department and a pet owner who struggled to find apartments that accept pets says, “I’ve been in a situation where me and my ex got a letter from our therapist saying our dog was an emotional support animal, and our landlord would constantly fight us on it, he would deny the letters we sent from the therapist. Essentially what he was doing was harassment, and eventually we left because of it.”
Landlords would have to have a reasonable reason to deny a pet owner and if pets cause damage to the apartment, it can cause thousands of dollars in damage. An article on abc7 reported that, “Debra Carlton, CAA's executive vice president of state government affairs said: ‘The bill does not allow for an increase in security deposits, potentially limiting landlords’ ability to cover pet-related damages.’”
Karnes says, “Even some of my friends had to deal with the struggles of finding an apartment that allows pets, when they got accepted for an apartment they disclosed they had cats and just because of that they got treated very poorly and were guilted into paying pet rent. So it really feels like this insane double standard.”
Many have conflicting views on the situation. But these policies can leave tenants without pets or even unhoused.