this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2024
553 points (96.8% liked)

politics

19239 readers
3171 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Wrench@lemmy.world 23 points 10 months ago (5 children)

I am a renter with pets, and don't think landlords should be forced to accept renters with pets.

I also acknowledge that pets can do an insane amount of damage to a property if not properly cared for.

I helped my brother repair the damage from a squatter (long story) after he allowed 4 dogs to completely destroy the interior. We were sanding pee saturated studs and priming over them, after ripping out all of the drywall, just to try to defeat the stink.

That's more damage than any plausible pet deposit can hope to cover. It was absolutely disgusting.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 32 points 10 months ago (2 children)

People can also cause insane amounts of damage, that doesn't mean it's the norm. I'm sorry about your brother's property, but that's not a reason to allow banning of pets. Nightmare tenants (or squatters) exist, it's just the gamble taken for renting out an investment property. Most pet owners take care of their pets and have no serious problems, after all, they're actually living with the results of their pet care.

[–] KingJalopy@lemm.ee 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

As someone who works in pest control and spends a lot of time in people's houses, especially those that are nasty and need my services, I assure you, most people live with the results of not only their lack of pet care, but their own. I've seen some shit and there's more nasty fucking people than you think. They don't even know they're nasty either, like it's my fault they have roach issues because they haven't admittedly cleaned their house in 17 years. (Not exaggerating)

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 19 points 10 months ago (2 children)

You've got a sampling bias, because, as you mention, one of the main reasons people need your services is because they're nasty, and anything serious enough to impact the apartment's value is well outside of even that norm. Most people absolutely do not simply let their pets pee wherever they want, because they don't want to live that way.

[–] KingJalopy@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago

True, but plenty of these people are quite well off and just simply don't notice it. I have a lot of clients who aren't actually nasty but their habits are. As the saying goes, it takes all kinds, I guess.

Not denying I have a sampling bias, but I've seen plenty of people who just seem oblivious to their lifestyle choices.

[–] Zippy@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

I installed internet into people houses for fifteen years. My sample is pretty broad. It is far nastier than most people realize. There majority is decent but it would be close to one in ten is very nasty then another one in ten that will have nice common 'public guest ' areas but when their basement and different story. It is really hard to tell from the outside and often the people seem normal. Hording is really common but then you get hording wet garbage as well.

[–] snuff@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I think it's a perfect reason to ban pets.

I do not owe you the house I paid for. You have to apply for it like everyone else and agree to the terms of my lease. If you don't like it, literally rent from anyone else, but you are not entitled to my property. Peroid.

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

I do not owe you the house I paid for.

Even small-time landlords are not typically paying for the house. They're just considered a better loan risk than the tenants.

[–] Zippy@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Are you suggesting that they do not pay some monthly fees for said house? Or more important, are you suggesting they won't have to pay one hundred percent of any damages done to said house? The government or bank will cover that?

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

I'm suggesting that they not only turn a profit in most cases, but that also they keep all of the equity.

[–] snuff@lemmy.world -3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

I said that in the past tense for a reason. I paid off my house before moving and renting it out. That's not the bank's house, that's my house, and you are still not entitled to it.

And let me be clear, I don't care what the law is, I will continue to discriminate against my applicants for any reason that suits me. Do you have dogs, too many kids, or job hop too often? Then your application is going in the trash. I don't fucking need you, so come right if you're going to come at all.

[–] michaelmrose@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If you don't agree with the terms society requires of landlords you are free to sell the property and invest in something else.

[–] snuff@lemmy.world -4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Bitch please. We are the society. Look at the god damn rent prices and tell me again what "we as a society" value.

[–] michaelmrose@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

We value landlords and existing homeowners wealth over the ability for people to live their lives.

[–] snuff@lemmy.world -4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Some of you soft bitches need to hear this. The world doesn't owe you sht. Fight for what you need, but blame yourself if you fail.

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

-- a landlord who feels entitled to half your paycheck for sitting on his ass

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Except you actually don't get to unilaterally decide who can live in your house. You can't ban black people, you can't ban children, you can't ban the handicapped. And soon, if you live in California, you may not be able to ban pets. You live in a society, with rules for what you can and cannot do with the real estate you own.

[–] snuff@lemmy.world -2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

And how do you realistically plan to enforce that? I have 100 applicants a month for 1 house that has never been vacant. If the current tennant ever decides to leave, how can you expect anyone to pick a potentially bad tennant when a potentially good one has the same right?

[–] JamesTBagg@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Again, that's an outlier and an anecdote.

[–] Zippy@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Renting houses, I would say half the pet owning renters would result in some pet related damage. A rug replacement or scratched wall. Repairable but not expensive. Then there would be one in ten that could do a significant amount of damage. Pee being the biggest one. A rug replacement is free thousand dollars. Let cats pee everywhere and you can have costs exceeding 40,000 dollars.

There is no real easy way to know which renter you have.

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 8 points 10 months ago

There are a lot of disgusting ass motherfuckers that let pets piss and shit wherever, and don't bother cleaning it. I don't understand how people are ok with a room of shit, but I've seen it house shopping more than once.

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I would agree with you more if there wasn't such a housing shortage and an increasing number of properties being swallowed up by large rich renters.

It steadily means that people have little choices, and are forced not to be able to have pets in their lives. Something people have been doing with dogs and cats for thousands of years.

If there's a risk, renters should be required some reasonable cost or deposit to cover it (not something gouging).

Edit: in general, too, I think that the normal "rules" of capitalism should go out the window when we're talking about basic human needs like food, housing, or health care.