Well, this is interesting.

kxan.com/news/texas-politics/lawmaker-proposes-capping-monthly-pet-fees-for-texas-renters/

As an aside, we are currently getting a home ready and the pets did quite a bit of damage.

My fault for not being diligent with the home visits during COVID. Lesson learned.

Residents say they shouldn't have to pay because we knew they had dogs when we rented to them and we should have known the dogs would do damage. And furthermore, they paid pet rent so that should have taken care of it. As a result of this, we are increasing our pet rent.

We have a great lease thanks to you all and all this is very thoroughly covered in the lease so we are not concerned about their lawyer telling them to sue us in small claims court.

If this were to pass, we would require a double deposit as $20/month will hardly buy the materials to replace chewed, broken trim pieces let alone the repairs.

We would also most likely begin requiring renters insurance for pet owners and would raise the monthly rent to help insure we are positioning ourselves to not go into the red.

Not too long ago a current tenant said, "I'm getting a companion animal"! I asked what was it? A miniature horse, a piranha or tick? She said a small dog that weighed in at 65 pounds. Oh boy! So I posted a 24 hour notice to inspect the unit AND take pictures.

In every room, every wall, baseboard, door, frame, floor I took pictures. I then handed my tenant a move-in/move-out check list and asked her to write where she see current damage, and to sign the form. BTW she put down that some of the bathroom floor tiles had cracks. So I also took pictures of those tiles.

Now my tenant is getting married and buying a condo to live. He beloved "companion animal" was exempt from me getting any type of deposit. So before and after her move-out, I provided a written list of the "cost or repair". Several Thousands of Dollars. Hardwood flooring replacement of areas, sanding and refinishing to match. Doors, frames, molding, drawers, etc.

So I needed to sue her in small claims court. But before, I heard from the grape vine that she and her husband requested cash over gifts at their wedding. Knowing they had the money, I gave them a 1 time offer, Make a 1 time payment within 7 days, and I'll give them a 25% discount. They offered me 50 cents on the dollar and I accepted. In storage I have replacement doors, molding and extra used hardwood flooring.

Pet rent and damage are very different, charge damage in next rent cycle - laws ask owner manager to make repair in 30 days and tenant should be held to the same standard.

Very little chance of it passing. There are lots of bills like this submitted by someone who has a self interest in a particular topic. Reason and logic take over when presented in the larger state body and they go by the way-side. I did chuckle where he is trying to compare this to the recent animal cruelty laws that were passed in the state, not even on the same plane. His view of the world is sadly skewed if he thinks these are similar topics, he's stretching the truth.

This TX law seems pretty fair to me, actually makes good sense. $20/ month actual limit on pet rent, option for one-time additional security deposit to cover pet damage.

Is there any reason to charge "pet rent" other than to account for pet damage? Does addition of a pet call for additional rent? For what? Does a pet do any additional wear & tear?

If the only objection to the law is SD, then damage is to be taken from that.

For owners that accept pets, makes good sense to me.

Good grief, of course you would think more government intervention is a good thing whether needed or not. If you think logically about it for a minute, what will be the real outcome if this becomes law? Landlords will stop accepting pets because they don't want the limits placed by government. This goober's proposal will actually make it harder on renters with pets. Most of our legislators can see the bigger picture when they look at new legislation balancing the good with the bad. It's called doing the right thing not just caving to some vocal minority as happens on the left coast.

The proposed TX law makes no sense and is an unconstitutional overreach into freedom of individuals to contract. Questions have been asked, and I'm pleased as always to offer my thoughts.

I had a pet do $4,800 worth of damages in one of my houses. Tenant left it at home all day and it piddled on the floor in every room of the house. I had to tear out three rooms (carpet, pad, subfloor) all the way down to the joists, Kilz them to lock in the odor, then relay new subflooring, underlayment, and covering. It was a 4 day job, three guys working, plus material and disposal fees.

The meager "pet deposit" of $400 per animal that many landlords charge wouldn't have come close to covering it. If I had not charged pet rent, I would have been financially damaged and forced to sue the tenant in court and then try to collect. As it was, the pet rent I collect from multiple tenants helped cover my loss. More on that in a minute.

The logic behind monthly pet rent is simple: many (most) tenants cannot afford a $2,000-$3,000 deposit for a pet, and as I have demonstrated the damages from a pet can add up to many times the amount of a pet deposit. Rather than demand more money than many of my Class C tenants earn in a month for a deposit, I break that up into smaller, bite-sized chunks. They can pay $150 up front as a non-refundable pet fee, and they can pay $25 per month pet rent. Over the course of my typical 2 - 3 year tenants, that amount provides a much better (but still not perfect) cushion for me against a large amount of damages.

I am also taking a risk when I allow a pet, as has been demonstrated. Risks deserve rewards or else people refuse to take risks. I could just say, "No pets." How does that help tenants?

Okay, but what about those pets that DON'T cause damages? Shouldn't the tenants get their money back if there are no damages?

No, and here's the simple answer: everyone here has heard of insurance. The concept is this: Many people (tenants) pay in small monthly or annual premium, but only a few receive a benefit when there is a loss. Insurance premiums are spent and gone. You don't get them back if your house doesn't burn down or your car never gets damages. Everyone understands this concept and accepts it.

Just so with pet rent. All tenant who want pets share the risk with each other that one pet will do a ton of damage, but each tenant is paying in small amount that is easily affordable as a monthly addition to the rent.

Think of pet rent like an insurance premium. Maybe if we call this "pet insurance" everyone would that satisfy everyone's angst?

If I couldn't charge pet rent, I simply would not allow pets: period. The market solution is to allow buyers (tenants) and sellers (landlords) to negotiate a mutually acceptable arrangement that allows each party to get what they want. If they cannot come to terms, then the parties go their separate ways.

In contrast, the Govt solution is to cram down rules that won't satisfy landlords, which means fewer landlords will accept pets, and fewer tenants will get to have a place with a pet unless they try to skirt the rules and declare their pets ESAs. That in turn will mean much more scrutiny from landlords for other reasons to deny tenants that has nothing to do with their ESAs. The risk level will increase artificially if we cannot charge pet rents; therefore, smart landlords will screen harder and deny people whom they might otherwise have taken a risk on since they could collect more in pet rent to help offset the risk.

To summarize: head-handed Govt intervention means fewer people get what they want on both sides.

In conclusion, the best answer is let the market decide. That, my friends, is freedom. It's what our country was founded on, and it's in our Governing documents. Finally, it is what works best for the most people.

[[[[...... Does a pet do any additional wear & tear?....]]]

Actually, yes, a pet greatly increases the wear and tear on a property. Carpets wear out faster with additional dirt and pet hair ground into the fibers. If the carpet is not stained or stinky, then "damage" can not be charged, and yet the landlord must replace the carpet sooner.

The dog comes in wet and shakes, throwing water and mud on the walls. If you have a good clean tenant, they scrub that off the walls and yet every time they scrub the walls it wears the paint. Damage can not be charged if there is no visible dirt, and yet the paint will not last as long.

OW, I never thought of the pet wear n tear angle, seems like a tenant could argue that scratches from them are WT.

Moshe, have you ever had a pet? Because it's not just a TENANT'S animals that cause additional wear and tear! My own pets have, over the years, done considerable damage to our own properties. It's just a fact of having animals.

Puppies pee and chew, kitties scratch and spray...blood and vomit on carpet...destroyed doors, woodwork, grass...chewed shoes...Turn your back on them when they are young and animals are like kids, they can do a lot of inadvertent damage. And old animals become incontinent just like old people do. Even well-behaved animals make mistakes (or we humans make mistakes in caring for them.)

Mosheee,

Having had someone who has had a pet Mink.....YES they can do significant damage to a place. THEY SIMPLY STINK! as for me, I want a HIPPO in my apartment. An ESA HIPPO

So maybe that deposit should be set as a function of the pet and not by the govt. Then again, some people seem to applaud the govt actions during the whole C-19 fiasco and are now blaming the greedy landlords now for the govy having to act again. perhaps it is because of the govts initial involvement that the prices were forced to get raised.