Bill to End Unconditional Pet Bans In Rental Units Introduced In The Assembly

A bill to end all unconditional pet bans in rental units in California was introduced in the Assembly on Tuesday. The bill would also require reasonable reasons for not allowing pets in a rental unit.

Assembly Bill 2216, authored by Assemblyman Matt Haney (D-San Francisco), would specifically require landlords to have reasonable reasons 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.

Assemblyman Haney wrote the bill because of the connection between pet ownership and the housing crisis in California. Specifically he noted that of the 17 million families and individuals renting in the state, close to 12 million, or 70% of these renters are pet owners. However, only around 30% of rental properties in the state allow pets, with San Francisco only having 21% of rental properties pet friendly, and 26% for Los Angeles.

Haney claims that because of current laws potential tenants have to either bring in a pet illegally which can rack up damage charges, have to pay high pet fees, have to forego finding a suitable apartment, or have to give up pets at shelters. According to a survey of 240 California based shelters, 67,881 pets were surrendered by their owners, with the leading cause of abandonment being inadequate living facilities.

“One of our main strategies to address the housing crisis has been building more housing,” said Assemblyman Haney in a statement. “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. Like it or not humans have pets, they always have and they always will. 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.”

The Human Society also backed the bill, with California State Director of the HS Jenny Berg adding that “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. 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.”

Steep opposition against AB 2216

However despite some support for the bill upon introduction, landlord groups and rental organizations, as well as some tenant groups, were up in arms over the bill.

“Haney is off his rocker,” David Wu, an apartment complex owner in Los Angeles told the Globe on Wednesday. “Pets can cause damages, we may have people with dog allergies elsewhere in the apartment, there is the issue of noise complaints from animals making noise, some neighborhoods have dog laws. There are just so many reasons for landlords like myself not to allow pets. This bill takes away our rights to protect our property. It needs to be up to the owner because it is their property. We need that right to sue or evict tenants for lying about pets too for safety reasons like I said.”

A local landlord group owner in San Jose, Allan King, said, “This bill would only cause more problems. Some units are very small, so if the tenant has a big dog, not giving them the needed space or having the tenant keep them in a crate all day  could amount to animal cruelty. Did this guy even take apartment size into consideration? Or the care for neighbors?”

Others told the Globe that AB 2216 would likely come with plenty of loopholes.

“What’s going to happen is that pet fees for places that don’t want dogs or cats or whatever will have those fees go through the roof,” said Kylie Warner, the owner of a tenant screener company. “If we aren’t allowed to ask about pets, then all it takes is a simple line of dialogue about the price for them to voluntarily say if they are bringing a pet or not. High fees will keep pet-owning tenants away, and the bill leaves the door open for tenant contracts to have clauses where a big fine will be levied if they bring in a pet without the landlord knowing.”

“Oh, your application has been approved? You have a pet? Ok, so pets are are so and so a month. Oh, and because the bill doesn’t have limits, pet fees can be per pet in each unit. All this bill is going to do is have landlords change around the language in rental agreements and levy higher and different fines and fees in reaction. What would be more effective is state or local incentive to allow pets in units, like tax breaks or something, if they are really serious about this.”

AB 2216 will be heard in Assembly committees soon.