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?