top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 154 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 child)

If this way of thinking became more widespread, all it would achieve would be the addition of child fees, not the removal of pet fees.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 129 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Apartments charging pet fees: 🫸

    Apartments charging child fees: 🫸

    Landlords being charged with crimes: 👍

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 80 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    They would absolutely charge a "children fee" if they were legally able to.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    You all understand that the children fee is literally paying for enough space to house children? Do your cats have their own room? ;)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 54 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Excuse me, but the bigger scam is the entire Landlord concept

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 6 months ago

    Social housing, which is “owned” by the community as a whole, is the answer. Not only for people who are not yet ready to own, but also for housing in general.

    Vienna is a prime model for this, where social housing is frequently much cheaper than ever owning a home. Most families that start out in social housing cling to it their entire life because it is just so much more financially responsible.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 31 points 6 months ago (12 children)

    This sounds like someone that has never seen what cats can do to a property when the owner doesn't take care of them.

    Piss drenched carpet and moldy walls are a pain in the ass to fix.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 6 months ago (6 children)

    You ever seen what half-arse parented kids will do? All of the above + holes and pest infestations

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 22 points 6 months ago (14 children)

    Fees for children would be illegal discrimination under fair housing laws.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 6 months ago (11 children)

    I vaguely recall reading that such child fees would likely be illegal (in the US)? I think it might also be illegal to exclude families with children from being eligible to rent a given location. Don't quote me on either, though, because I don't have sources on hand.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 6 months ago

    In Brazil is illegal for landlords or apartment buildings to charge or prohibit pets on their units. They are some laws around, like it should be as big as you can charge it on your arms, can't use the common areas unless designated pet areas and can't be loud at night.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    In the US, many mobile home communities require tenants be over the age of 55.

    I’ve seen weird rules too, like 50% of the household must be over 55. So like if your spouse is younger but you are older than that is okay. This pretty effectively does a good job of restricting children just based on math and family dynamic without explicitly stating “no kids”.

    One of my parents used to live in such a community. It was quiet as hell at night.

    So restrictions like that are clearly legal and not considered ageism. (I might have considered living in that same community if I were old enough.) But apparently restricting children would be illegal?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 15 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Last time I was charged a pet fee, I asked them "So if my wife gets pregnant, do we need to plan to pay extra on the rent?"

    The leasing agent looked at me like I was crazy and said "Of course not, that would be ridiculous!"

    And then she realized... Like I could literally see it flash across her face. She dropped it.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 15 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    I once toured an apartment that charged pet fees and for dogs REQUIRED A DNA TEST so they could fine you for not picking up poop.

    Someone out there is dna testing literal dog shit.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 6 months ago*

    No one is actually doing that, they're charging a fee to do nothing until someone complains enough that they'll send out a strongly worded letter hoping the person not picking up their dog poop will admit to it out of fear.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 14 points 6 months ago (24 children)

    Children are members of society. They're imperfect, but still. As other members of society, we have a duty to at least tolerate them.

    I find it very sad that some people treat them like a different species. You wouldn't hear people say, without being countered, "I don't want to see old people" or "I don't want to have to interact with women". It's fucked up, you don't choose the other members of society.

  • source
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • load more comments (24 replies)
    [–] 13 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Society rather wants people to have kids and not pets for self-preservation reasons

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 6 months ago

    Tough one. I've never wanted kids and my God are they so goddamn loud...

    But, as more of my friends have kids I feel more and more for parents, it's damned tough to raise kids and finding housing, especially in my city is brutal.

    Still, not like a fee helps anyone beyond the landlord.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    All it takes is one untrained dog with separation anxiety to chew through walls and tear trim off of door frames to trigger rules like this.

    Or one elderly pet with severe incontinence peeing in the closest carpeted corner instead of the litter box.

    With that said, children certainly have a much greater capacity for damage, especially when they get older. Infants? Not so much.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago*

    Yes and what does that fee have to do with it?

    Security Deposits are already double rent, and the entire legal system including property insurance still exists.

    The $100/month isn't going anywhere except to profit.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 6 months ago

    don't spread this pro landlord bs

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 6 months ago

    Just landlords gouging every cent.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 6 months ago

    Don't give them ideas

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    I have done a lot of residential work over the years a lot of sales work a lot of things where I've been in a lot of people's houses. Nothing smells worse than a person with cats who even goes a week or two without taking care of their litter box. And that smells sticks in everything. I have pets and I agree that a pet deposit is something needed because damn they do a lot of damage.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›