US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

Re:US ends era of emotional support animals on planes by joegahona on Thursday December 03, 2020 @04:50PM (#25295636)

What I don't get is why can't this occur via a massive deposit on the front end, that the landlord can then itemize and prove when the tenant moves out? Rent forces all people to pay a monthly charge for their pet, regardless if their pet is a disaster or well behaved.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US ends era of emotional support animals on planes by lotsofpulp on Thursday December 03, 2020 @05:54PM (#25296493)

A security deposit is a legal term treated differently than rent, and can become a subjective thing that can be litigated. It's much more secure to simply demand it as rent.

Hotels discount rooms all the time for guests they know have a very low likelihood of causing damage. The probability of a person with a pet causing damage must be sufficiently high that it makes sense to charge extra. There's plenty of competing landlords and hotel businesses, and if there was economic opportunity in doing it the way you said, it would be done.

It's not just pets though. Hotels will charge more for wedding parties, who are far likelier to cause noise complaints, damage etc, than a crew of workers who will be sleeping, going to work, rinse repeat.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US ends era of emotional support animals on planes by joegahona on Thursday December 03, 2020 @07:33PM (#25297506)

> A security deposit is a legal term treated differently than rent, and can become a subjective thing that can be litigated. It's much more secure to simply demand it as rent.

Oh, I realize why landlords prefer it. I just don't think it holds up under scrutiny. If you're my tenant and I charge you $100/month for dog rent on your new puppy, who causes $0 damage and lives for 14 years, I've extracted $16,800 from you, $0 of which will go toward rehabbing the apartment of dog damages when you leave.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US ends era of emotional support animals on planes by 1123581321 on Thursday December 03, 2020 @08:02PM (#25297706)

The naive $0 in this example is exactly the issue. Pet owners don’t notice the damage and wear (over a dog’s entire lifetime, substantial), so they contest it when they are wrong. If an expense is effectively guaranteed to be occurred, it should be paid.

Additionally, a landlord will want to work on the space more often than once every 14 years. A security deposit does not cover this.

Additionally a tenant renting for 14 years is making a suboptimal financial decision regardless of pet ownership. Much more than $15k would be unnecessarily spent, for many people. A tenant who wants to get the better end financially, especially a pet owner, will buy or at least keep the landlord honest about market costs of the rental.

[ Parent | on HN ]