Denver is trying to ban deposits for pets. How would you address or fight this?

[Nate Marshall]

Proposed Bill Would Eliminate Deposits and Fees for Denver Renters With Animals | Westword

[Henry T.]

Um, maybe write to Alex Valdez and tell him you'll be switching your vote. And send him some pics of clawed up doors and pet stained hardwood floors.  Pet damages can easily exceed $1000. Suggest instead, he start a program to encourage people with pets to buy their own homes. Not being pet protected may encourage you to leave Colo in search of more profitable locations, shrinking an already tight rental market. Put your financial might behind a more business friendly candidate.....just suggestions.

[Bill B.]

Who are they trying to help? Obviously this will be much worse for people with pets as more and more rentals will ban them. Only people with the best of the best credit and income who care about their credit and have enough assets for the landlord to go after in a lawsuit will be allowed to have them. (I.E. to rent you need 3x income and a 650 credit score. To have a pet you need 4x income and a 750 credit score.)

If I was a landlord I’d probably stop doing yearly leases and switch to MTM, so when you discover they’ve moved in a pet you can raise the rent to amount you feel is fair for someone who lied about having pets. 

Ps. I didn’t read the link but your title just says they’re banning deposits and fees. Are they banning additional rent per pet? That’s what most people have switched towards anyway to make it a source of income rather than just a deposit you have to give back.   if they have then just ban them or go with my other suggestions. Per the norm, the poor people they’re trying to help with pay the price. 

[Chris Lopez]

@Nate Marshall Colorado Landlord Legislative Coalition is great. Get plugged in and donate! https://coloradolandlordlegisl...

[John Underwood]

Charge a non refundable pet fee or charge extra pet rent.

I always charge the fee and not a deposit. 

You could also just bump the human deposit.

[Bruce Woodruff]

Quote from @John Underwood:

Charge a non refundable pet fee or charge extra pet rent.

I always charge the fee and not a deposit. 

You could also just bump the human deposit.

 It eliminates deposits and fees...

[Bill B.]

That why you charge pet rent instead. Not a fee not a deposit. Or have different qualifications for renters with and without pets. Or just ban them so people who allow pets can charge more rent. And use the shorter terms ro even MTM so you can raise rents on tenants who “forgot they had a pet.”  

Should be win win for landlords and lose lose for pet owners, just as the lawmakers knew, or should have known it would be. 

[Greg M.]

Very important part of the bill that was not mentioned here: (It) would also set up a state fund to reimburse landlords up to $1,000 for damages caused by their tenants' pets.

[Bruce Woodruff]

Quote from @Bill B.:

That why you charge pet rent instead. Not a fee not a deposit. Or have different qualifications for renters with and without pets. Or just ban them so people who allow pets can charge more rent. And use the shorter terms ro even MTM so you can raise rents on tenants who “forgot they had a pet.”  

Should be win win for landlords and lose lose for pet owners, just as the lawmakers knew, or should have known it would be. 

 Lawmakers aren't generally smart enough to figure out stuff like that......

[Adam Martin]

I will say that while I'm against this bill generally I am surprised and pleased to see that they included an extra $1000 deposit but good luck collecting it I would think.  The tenant in the story for those who were not reading were concerned that based on rents and pet fees they were out over 1k for the year however part of the deposit should be refunded at the end so I don't see this as a sunk cost.  The pet rent was only $35 which is what I do and seems very reasonable.  Her concern that this could cause people to surrender their pets is an issue that should have been thought of before they bought them.  If cities around the country really cared about affordable housing why don't they just balance and tighten their budget and stop raising or even lower taxes and housing would be cheaper for everyone.  The woman in question is a therapist by trade so I have to give her credit that she is willing to complain yet comply with the deposits vs. just having a friend in the business write a fake ESA letter.  

[Bruce Woodruff]

I'll say it again. The Government has no business telling people what they can do with their properties. Other than criminal activities like meth labs in the house, of course...

[Nathan Gesner]

There are large organizations fighting this, so hopefully it will go away.

Make sure you are voting for leaders that understand and respect private property rights. You should get to say what you do with your property.

The leftists are trying to soften the blow with this promise of $1000 credit towards damage. Anyone with experience knows that a bad tenant/animal can cause 10x that without much effort. I also expect that money will be hard to come by and will probably dry up quickly.

As others have said, you just increase the rent. Advertise "Pet friendly for $1,500 a month." If no pets, give them a credit of $XXX. This way you aren't charging fees for pets; you are giving credits for no pets.

If this does pass, and I find it unlikely, I suspect professionals will figure out a way around it.

[Greg Weik]

We already see tenants skirting pet fees, deposits, and pet rent by having Emotional Support Animals (ESAs). 

All property managers know that the ESA industry has exploded in the past 10 years and shows no signs of slowing down.  More and more tenants are realizing they can simply go online, pay $70 on a website, and get a letter from a medical professional prescribing their pet as an ESA. 

Having an ESA already opens up every property to a tenant, whether it's listed as pet friendly or not, and with no fees or deposits. 

Like most legislation that has been passed in recent memory, this will only serve to negatively impact the very same tenants the legislators are claiming to be trying to protect.  

Legislatively eliminating pet fees/deposits/rent will ultimately lead to higher overall costs to all tenants for all properties, either with higher rents or higher security deposits.  Should this pass, it will have the opposite of the intended effect, though the effects may be somewhat blurred from the tenant's perspective, as those effects are spread out across entire rental markets and inventories. 

[Joe Garretson]

Quote from @Bruce Woodruff:

I'll say it again. The Government has no business telling people what they can do with their properties. Other than criminal activities like meth labs in the house, of course...

 The Colorado Legislature just said "hold my beer." 

They have a laundry list of progressive do good, feel good, type bills that will absolutely make it through and get signed by the governor.  Nearly every one of them is bad news for landlords. 

This state is doing everything it can to challenge CA and all the other extremely liberal states for the title of least landlord friendly areas. 

I for one, will not be buying an investment property here any longer. Too damn risky. 

[Joe Garretson]

Quote from @Nathan Gesner:

There are large organizations fighting this, so hopefully it will go away.

Make sure you are voting for leaders that understand and respect private property rights. You should get to say what you do with your property.

The leftists are trying to soften the blow with this promise of $1000 credit towards damage. Anyone with experience knows that a bad tenant/animal can cause 10x that without much effort. I also expect that money will be hard to come by and will probably dry up quickly.

As others have said, you just increase the rent. Advertise "Pet friendly for $1,500 a month." If no pets, give them a credit of $XXX. This way you aren't charging fees for pets; you are giving credits for no pets.

If this does pass, and I find it unlikely, I suspect professionals will figure out a way around it.

The only chance any of these loony bills don't end up law is because our illustrious governor has national aspirations and he gets really squishy if stuff looks bad for him. Otherwise, a super majority, a left tilting populace getting bluer by the day... 

[Zeona McIntyre]

@Greg M. trying to collect the $1000 from the state fund sounds like a major headache. 

[John Ramos]

HOUSE BILL 23-1068, Pet Animal Ownership In Housing proposes that insurance companies may not prohibit certain breeds of dogs for purposes of obtaining homeowners insurance, landlords may not charge a pet deposit and or pet rent if they allow tenants to keep pets on the property, the bill calls for establishment of the pet friendly landlord mitigation program by the department of local affairs, landlords may not place a lien upon a pet for purposes of collecting from tenants who are in default and lastly, the bill mandates that in order to obtain the Colorado affordable housing tax credit all affordable housing projects must allow pet ownership.  Here's a summary of what these provisions may impact for landlords and homeowners in Colorado:

Insurance Companies May Not Prohibit Certain Breeds

1. Unless the dog has been identified as a dangerous dog by animal control or law enforcement then all dog breed will need to be allowed.  Certain insurance companies may simply stop writing policies in Colorado and others may significantly raise rates in order to take on the risk of breeds like pit bulls, staffordshire terriers, dobermans and other breeds that are often prohibited in rental dwelling policies.  Not only will this impact landlords but will affect homeowners as well.

2. Another scenario is that insurance companies in Colorado exclude incidents with pets from coverage thereby leaving the homeowner/landlord completely liable for incidents with pets that they allow to occupy their property, sometimes these can reach into the hundreds of thousands.

No Pet Deposits and No Pet Rent

1.  This article is clear and states that IF the landlord chooses to allow pets then the landlord will not be able to charge either an extra deposit or additional rent per pet.  Naming certain items a "fee" or stating that they are refundable may be interpreted by the courts as deposits and pet rent in disguise.  This article takes away a landlords right to determine how their property may be accessed by the public in terms of allowing pets in their rentals.

2.  Are landlords now supposed to relinquish certain rights over private property if they choose to enter the rental business?  Who then becomes the true beneficial owner of the property if not the individual who pays the mortgage/insurance/maintenance?  It's not clear if these questions have been contemplated by the Colorado legislature.

3. For those landlords that do choose to accept pets then large deposits (2X-3X monthly rent) may become the norm and pet ownership may become the realm of the wealthy thereby having the opposite effect of the legislators intent.

Establishment of Landlord Mitigation Fund

1. This article calls for the establishment of a landlord mitigation fund that, subject to funding, will compensate the landlord up to $1,000.00 for damages caused by a tenant's pet, the $1,000.00 cannot be requested/applied for if the deposit of the tenant covered the damages caused by the pet.

2. While the bill calls for the department of local affairs to establish the fund there is no mechanism, defined by the bill, to actually fund the mitigation fund.  For those who are unfamiliar with governmental processes there needs to be a mechanism by which to fund this part of the bill.  What may happen is that the state will require landlords to fund this by way of a licensing fee thereby increasing the cost to be a landlord--but here's the rub, if you as a landlord never accept pets then any licensing fee/surcharge that you end up paying will become a sunk cost with no ability to recapture the cost.

Pets Will Not Be Deemed The Personal Property Of The Tenant

1. In certain cases Landlords have taken a lien over tenant's pets in order to collect past due rent or other charges.  These instances are rare and generally only applied to the most egregious of lease defaults.

2. Will this mean that pets are now defined as legal entities like a person or a company?  If they are not the personal property of the tenant will they automatically be the property of the state?  Interesting indeed.

All Affordable Housing Projects In Colorado Will Need To Accept Pets

1. Without the ability to offer investors the tax credit developers no longer have an affordable housing project but rather a market rate project.

This is just one of a number of bills that if passed will do nothing to increase the rental inventory of Colorado but will in fact reduce the supply of rental inventory of Colorado.  There is currently a super majority in both the House and the Senate in Colorado, enough to override a gubernatorial veto.  If you don't agree with these changes to the rental business please reach out to your Colorado Representative and Senator for your respective district.

[Bruce Woodruff]

This is beyond stupid. How have we gotten to the point where the inmates are running the asylum?