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

Question

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

Bruce Woodruff · Answer

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...

Greg M. · Answer

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.

Bill B. · Answer

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.

Nathan Gesner · Answer

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.

Bruce Woodruff · Answer

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

John Underwood · Answer

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.

John Ramos · Answer

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.

Zeona McIntyre · Answer

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

Joe Garretson · Answer

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...

Joe Garretson · Answer

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.

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

Most Popular Reply