theblaze.com

Blaze News investigates: California Democrats propose new law that will push rents higher during painful housing crisis

Carlos Garcia

6–7 minutes

Democrats in the California legislature are pushing a law that critics say will hurt renters with higher rents by imposing restrictions on landlords.

"This is really going to cause havoc to renters in California," said Daniel Yukelson of the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles to Blaze News about Assembly Bill 1266.

AB 1266 would restrict landlords from asking whether potential renters have pets and would ban them from requiring pet deposits in order to cover the potential cost of damage from pets. Coverage of the bill in the mainstream media has been mostly positive and ignored criticism from housing experts who say the bill would likely lead to higher rent prices and other damaging consequences.

The bill was authored by California Assembly Member Matt Haney, a Democrat, who says that it is unfair to pet owners that landlords can restrict pets in their units or charge them a deposit to cover possible damages.

“A two-tiered system that punishes people for having pets, or treats them differently, or has a greater burden on them just for that fact should not be allowed in the law,” said Haney to KQED-TV.

Opponents of the bill say that it will only worsen the housing crisis in California.

Yukelson outlined numerous ways that the bill could be detrimental to the availability of housing in California by adding another restriction on housing providers.

One of his major concerns is how the proposed legislation could make it harder for property owners to obtain affordable insurance. He pointed out that insurance companies are already raising their premiums or dropping coverage altogether in California. Forcing all landlords to accept pets would add another complication that will hurt tenants in the long run.

"You can't even get renewals in a lot of cases, and this is just gonna add insult to injury because the insurance companies are just going to exclude all liability coverage for pets if we're forced to accept these animals," Yukelson explained.

He went on to say that many rentals don't have lawns or other outside accommodations for pets, making them inappropriate for pet owners. With the new law, property owners would have to allow pets regardless of whether the property can accommodate them.

'Smell this photo'

Erin Stumpf, a Sacramento-based realtor, criticized the proposal by posting a photograph of excessive damage done to a rental unit by pets that she says added up to thousands.

"Don’t limit a housing provider’s ability to decline pets," Stumpf posted to X, formerly known as Twitter.

"A pet can do TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS damage," she added. "If you could smell this photo maybe you’d get it."

Stumpf elaborated her point in a statement to Blaze News. She said the additional restrictions would just add more pressure to increase rental requirements.

"As a rental property owner myself, I will probably be inclined to impose much more stringent minimum credit score and income qualifications on potential renters if I must accept pets," she wrote. "Pets can be very destructive between digging, chewing, and urinating, etc., so as a rental housing provider, if I am forced to rent to a tenant with a pet, I will want to ensure that I only rent to absolutely the most responsible tenants who have sufficient income and assets, where I can hope to recover the cost of pet damage upon move-out."

Yukelson added that the bill could force people with allergic reactions to pets to be forced to live in units next to pet owners.

Other organizations voiced similar concerns, including the California Apartment Association and the Southern California Rental Housing Association, among many more.

'It's simple economics'

Haney has claimed the pet law is aimed at easing the housing crisis.

“We’re not going to solve our housing crisis if we continue to allow for no protections for pet owners who represent the majority of our tenants,” Haney has said. “This is simply about access to housing.”

Yukelson explains why the new proposal on top of decades of over-regulation will make the housing crisis far worse.

"It's just another straw that breaks the camel's back. These days people are getting out of the business. They can't afford to be in the business, they can't stomach it any more, there's so many layers of regulation," he continued.

"And then the legislators sit back and they wonder, 'Why do we have a housing shortage? Why do we have the worst homelessness situation in the country? Why do we have skyrocketing rents?'" Yukelson added.

"Well, it's simple economics," he concluded. "There's just not enough housing for people. And there's policies that we've had in place for more than four decades that are not working, and they need to be balanced so at least the property owners have a fighting chance to stay in the business! It's crazy!"

The law is considered to be the first of its kind in the U.S., but its detractors are afraid that it will spread to other states. The bill has passed the Judiciary Committee and is now on the Assembly floor.

Yukelson admits that Haney's office has been trying to come up with a compromise to answer some of the criticism, including the possibility of increasing limits on security deposits.

He did identify one benefit of the mismanagement of politics in California.

"The only thing we have going for us to help our housing is people are leaving California in droves, but those are all the taxpayers!" he joked.

Here’s an application question for the conservative landlords still operating behind enemy lines in Cali: “Are there any potential allergens in your current home?”

I don't prohibit pets, I just put conditions on them as I do the other proposed residents.

* Spayed/Neutered, so no animals "too young" to be neutered either.

* Treated for fleas by vet throughout lease

* No more than 1 outdoor-potty-trained (no pee-pads) dog or 2 indoor cats with minimum 2 litter-boxes

* All laws regarding keeping and care of animals must be followed

I didn't read the entire article, but I think I got the list of it. "will hurt renters with higher rents by imposing restrictions on landlords." pretty much says it all.

Animal Inclusive Rental = highest security deposit and rent possible for everyone.

Some of us are already going there to (try to) avoid the ESA scams

"punishes people for having pets" = be responsible for decisions you make, no matter what they are. ie: if you can't afford, or won't be bothered to give proper care/training, then don't get one.

These are low intelligence lawmakers, and you see this sort of thing regarding pets come up all the time. Note I do NOT think I'm smarter than other people, and I am a pet lover myself. But I will call out people who don't even think.

They have no idea what they are doing with laws like this, and the 'unintended' consequences they will have. They do not think, at all. They act on emotion and then shrug when everything falls apart, gosh I never saw that coming.

Force landlords to take pets and without pet deposits? All this does is put abusive pet owners in apartments they should never have been in.... who cause damage, drama, and suffering to the pets. Can these lawmakers even think past step 1, that this punishes the responsible pet owners who would have gotten their pet deposits returned, by ruining all those great more affordable apartments that would have been available to them?

Some lawmakers are utterly self centered, and basically want to force people to house others and their destructive pets at their own expense, pay the damages and then expect people to continue to want to provide great affordable housing when it loses money.

IDK.

Sorry to rant a bit. But as far as rentals....Pet deposits, Security deposits are WONDERFUL. They reward good tenants and pet owners, they punish destructive tenants and abusive pet owners, they make leasing and offering clean affordable undamaged apartments possible. They are a bummer of course- nobody wants to have to save up money for a little while when they can spend it on stuff. But they are absolutely, totally, vital to makin the system work.

Even if you are utterly self-centered and care nothing about anyone but yourself, and are a pet owning tenant.... consider that you will be affected by legislation like this in ways you never expected. You'll be surprised, and will blame other reasons, and won't like it at all. But you could have seen it coming if you thought about it enough.

Can I pet them?

I suppose it might stop all the ESA claims in CA.

It would be great when things like this are posted, to not only include the name of the sponsor to include his/her address in order to register your feelings, even a post card,

Yes "I" can look it up,.but others probably will not take that time. It might even have more of an impact to have their home address (no threats) but let them know how you feel.