No-Example1376 t1_jb7ivcp wrote
Also, I don't know if you realize the amount of deep damage that can be done by a cat peeing or marking the floors and walls. Enzyme washes only do so much. Carpets are the least of the issue. Subfloor often need replacing, drywall replaced and repainted, molding, too. It can add up to thousands with one incident even with a fully trained adult housecat - they can get nervous or feel the need to mark and you can't stop them once they get it in their mind to do it even if they've never done it before. Then, after that, there is a high chance the cat will go back and do again - ask me how I know.
BTW, service animals require an Rx from a doctor that has been treating g you mentally already and will continue to treat you and you will need to get that Rx renewed every year.
I love cats - even my little calm marking one, but consider moving to a place where they commonly allow animals already. Don't ruin a decent tenant/landlord relationship over a cat you don't already own.
edit:typo
No-Example1376 t1_jb7k1zz wrote
down vote all you want. You don't own the place and you agreed to a lease. You can't change the terms as you see fit. I never even thought to pull that sort of thing all the years I rented because it's a legal contract. You always have the option to go buy your own place that you can do whatever you please wirh a d fix or not fix it.
8910273 t1_jb7ouot wrote
>You always have the option to go buy your own place
They would but landlords are hoarding half the housing and causing prices to be artificially high.
No-Example1376 t1_jb7rido wrote
So, lease terms should be ignored because banks/economy/ whoever/whatever have made it difficult to own?
They had 25 years to save up if they were interested in not abiding by the terms of the lease. If they can move to a more pet friendly place with a lower pet fee.
8910273 t1_jb7t1q6 wrote
They've been paying 100% of the landlord's mortgage and maintenance for 25 years. Too bad all that equity goes to the deadbeat landlord instead of them. They can't save because they're forced to hand it over to someone who doesn't work at all.
Also a cat does not cost $1500 in damages a year. Even you know that's bogus
No-Example1376 t1_jb7u85x wrote
Suurrrre, tell that to my bank account that had to cover the charges.
The landlord is willing to work with them, but the OP is crying foul on the pricing. I personally think they should be happy the LL is willing to do so vs finding a reason for eviction over it.
Rental apartment/houses have been around forever, not just this century. Without them, people new to this country or just starting out would have no stable place to live. It's a business. Of course they are in it to make money. A lot of small landlords do it to help pay their retirement because Social Security doesn't cut it, but the scrimped and saved used a GI Bill get a house. My landlord was pretty decent about it all. Don't start lumping those guys in with these big conglomerates.
Even so, the lease is a legal and binding instrument that nobody forces you to sign. You're issues with the current state housing are beyond the OP's question.
8910273 t1_jb8090b wrote
LOL big copium here
>my bank account my tenants' bank accounts had to cover the charges
Say it correctly. You don't pay for shit, your tenants do. Everything. You would not choose to be a landlord if you did not make a profit, and as a landlord you have no revenue source other than your tenants' rent. Therefore all expenditures for maintenance and mortgage are paid for by your tenants' money, not yours.
Quite frankly, I think when they've paid the entire amount of the landlord's mortgage (and they have certainly seen rent increases over 25 years) and they don't even get the house, the landlord should be their bitch and let them do what they want in the house.
>A lot of small landlords do it to help pay their retirement
Most people fill up their 401k's and other retirement by working and not simply taking from other people's retirement who did work. You should get a job and cut back on those starbucks lattes, McMansions, or whatever you're blowing your tenants' money on that's causing you to not have retirement money.
>Without them, people new to this country or just starting out would have no stable place to live
Lots of countries have public housing for this purpose lol. The houses are already built, which you didn't have a part in. You just make it harder for the people starting out by taking as much of their income as you can get away with to enrich yourself. You make all housing more expensive by hoarding huge amounts of supply and creating artificial scarcity, which increases the rent you can extort but makes it harder for them to ever buy a house. You aren't doing them any favors either when you're always raising rents to ""market rate,"" a euphamistic phrase for a made up number set by landlords that increases every year for no reason other than that you can. Of course, you know all this.
Also, you and I both know these people haven't been "starting out" for 25 years unless what you really mean is "private landlord has been holding them down for 25 years." You also know you aren't helping anyone nor are you trying to. You said it yourself that it's purely a business, one that's appealing because it's one of the few businesses where you make money not doing anything productive or producing products or services of value. It's pure laziness and greed while profiting off a business model that has as much legitimacy as that of ticket scalping.
No-Example1376 t1_jb9jd6v wrote
I didn't read your entire post, but you seem to be making this personal? I don't know why nor do I care why you can't see both sides of the issue.
I have no skin in this game.
I rented.
I had a cat.
It never had a problem until the poor thing did.
It happened to me which is why the post caught my eye.
I was lucky according to MY lawyer - a friend that didn't charge me- I had a landlord that didn't throw me and my cat out of my butt when the estimates to fix it came in or find a way to do so later on.
I don't begrudge other people for owning houses.
I don't begrudge people for renting and wanting pets.
I begrudge anyone that makes a legal agreement, decides they want to change it for their whims and then gets all upset because the other person puts conditions on it.
The way I see it - having been there - the landlord already consulted a lawyer, the laws, and other landlords.
They are not interested in evicting a nice family that apparently is paying on time, but if the renters are going to put the landlord's property in jeopardy of being damaged, then he's going to charge for it.
The fact that it is higher than others is a BIG RED FLASHING SIGN that the landlord is not happy about it and doesn't really want to say yes.
The reality is, the only reason it isn't a hard 'no' is because the landlord is trying to 'work with' the renters probably because they're good payers.
Meanwhile, the renters here are not saying, 'Thank you for giving us a way to have a cat when it's not part of the lease agreement.' They complaining that they should that the pet payment should not reflect what the actual homeowner feels the risk is worth.
There are plenty of ways a landlord can find to get renters out. I liked where I lived and I did/paid what I had to stay there. My landlord was older and was cool as long ad I paid to fix it.
It's called: don't poop where you eat.
You don't have to like it or agree, but those are the facts.
If you want to argue further, go right ahead, so I guess... you.... win?
8910273 t1_jb9ldlq wrote
Are you serious? There's nothing personal about this, I'm telling you why there is no "both sides" to this, and I don't care about winning arguments. Is that all you ever try to do?
It seems like you make arguments personal by trying to offer stories I'm supposed to sob about or something
[deleted] OP t1_jb9lmwr wrote
[deleted]
Horse_Dad t1_jb7p8cu wrote
I’ve never met anyone who planned on getting an unruly destructive cat.
No-Example1376 t1_jb7qxh7 wrote
Of course not, but there's no way to predict any cat's reaction to a new environment or what might upset them later on. My cat didn't mark until 2 years in.
I'm just saying that if you signed a lease, then you should hold up to the agreement. It has zero to do with who owns the property or how long they have owned it or how long a renters has lived there. A lease is a legal binding contract.
To me, the bigger point is that the landlord is under no obligation to change a legal contract just because a tenant decides they now want a pet. The tenants knew the terms of the lease before signing it. They wouldn't like the terms suddenly being changed and then crying how it was unfair. There's a sense if responsibility that comes with living up to an agreement that also applies to owning a pet.
I wouldn't want to make a tense situation with a landlord if I liked where I lived. All it does it start giving them reasons to look to get you out. Just me, but, YMMV.
Horse_Dad t1_jb86h3h wrote
Oh, I agree with you. I’m just amused by OP strengthening their argument with “I plan on getting a trained, independent house cat” like anyone plans on getting otherwise.
No-Example1376 t1_jb9gi7p wrote
Thanks, I missed that in tbe OP's statement. I read it as adult cat.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments