Maybe you haven't rented in a while from a management company.

There are any number of stupid trends nowadays.

apartment account/login required to do almost anything, including autopay. electronic phone/garage keys with almost trivial consent of access to your apartment. apartment internet required. third party apps with account/phone/video+photos requirement to access package room, etc.

Having been an extreme novice once, I can appreciate these laws. But as always you’ll probably get your experience the hard way.

Seattle should do restaurants next, the number of places with %fees tacked on that aren't tips and aren't optional, just so they don't end up having $20+ entrees on the menu is growing steadily.

I liked reading "the rational optimist" by matt ridley

One point I remember is that with trust, trade is infinite.

This completely follows in my life.

I trust costco, and I buy stuff there without doing any calculus.

I don't trust apps on the apple store, I basically don't buy any of them (even/especially the free ones). Even the phone itself has about 10,000 pages of privacy policy.

GOG sells games without DRM that you can download and played offline, forever. I don't worry about buying any game.

This issue exists everywhere in the USA.

Go check the price for a movie ticket. At the end they slap on an additional fee. Why can't they show the fee included in the main price?

I went to the Verde Canyon Railroad, when gas prices were really low. Still a fee for higher gas prices on the receipt...

It's amazing how people neglect this basic fact. Free markets already often don't work in practice. But they don't even work in theory if both parties do not have at the very least the same information in order to base their decisions. These sort of scam tactics (like dynamic pricing) are simply fraud, much like hiding problems in a car or a house you sell.

Small landlords don't own apartment buildings. They buy houses/units to rent, lowering availability for buyers. So, you'd at least want to look at the number of new apartment rentals available plus the number of first time house buyers to get a better picture.

Can you cite what laws you are talking about. The one being discussed here does not seem to target small landlords, but big predatory ones. There aren't any additional fees or inspections and compliance is as simple as only charging one amount for rent and not tacking on additional fees.

My experience when renting in Seattle a decade ago was that it wasn't particularly hard to find a place, and that the only places that dealt in these bullshit fees were the big corporate landlords.

Small landlords aren't the ones dropping junk fees on tenants

I think this might help small landlords out a bit. Big corporate landlords can easily add nonsense fees to make the rent look low. Small landlords wouldn't bother charging you to use your own mailbox and usually don't have common areas to charge you for access to. With things made transparent, the small landlords can simply offer a price, and be on a more level playing field.

Causation or correlation (if that)? I doubt small time landlords are charging these fees anyway.

On one side, I fully understand that. On the other side, if this really reflects the cost of compliance, maybe this is the only way to signal the voter that the "there ought to be a law" approach has some downsides to it.

I honestly think a us ban would get us quite far, also in a global setting.

This isn't a ban on junk fees. It's an upfront disclosure requirement.

In the US we were well on the way to substantial national bans on these types of junk fees under the Biden administration's CFPB, Khan's FTC, etc and then Trump reversed everything a few months into his current term.

Being ripped off by large corporations at every transaction is what "owning the libs" looks like for your life in practice, but hey at least you can say slurs on twitter now!

[flagged]

There's nothing more American than not knowing the price you're going to pay for something until you have to pay it. This applies to everything from income taxes to health care to big ticket purchases like homes and cars, to airline tickets, to cell phone and cable service, all the way down to restaurants with tips and service fees and everything on the store shelf, where sales tax is not included in the price of the good. Somehow the USA has normalized this throughout its entire culture.

It reminds me of my first time in Europe as an American. You go to a cafe, look at the prices, and know exactly how much money you are going to be handing them. It felt like magic because I couldn't remember the last time I paid just the advertised price on anything.

Now, unfortunately in places like the UK, tips are becoming more frequent as well as a discretionary 12.5% service charge at restaurants. And everything online has a convenience fee.

I wish governments would get serious about price transparency. The solution is quite simple, but I fear that with algorithmic pricing things are going to be getting much worse in the short term.

I don't have any hope for broad legislation that affects all businesses. Americans are so used to + tax + tips + convenience fees that doing anything else would hurt at both ends: consumers will claim inflation (oh that 8.99+30% burger is now 11.50? Tragedy) and businesses will mourn the loss of scam tactics that lets them earn more.

What happens when the government raises one of its taxes or imposes a new one?

Until Congressional and Executive branch regime change, you should expect city and state efforts to be more effective in the interim. Focus there until regime change and federal change is possible, as it currently is not possible. Death of junk fees via "death by a thousand cuts." Companies can keep up with federal lobbying, they cannot keep up with cities and states all at once. See: data centers and ALPRs.

Yes, there are people insisting that this will make things impossible for tenants because "no one will want to be a landlord anymore" if they can't charge junk fees.

I think you should check out the kinds of fees they call out as no longer allowed[1]. They include things like: a fee to "perform landlord duties" and a fee to "access your mailbox." I absolutely think it should be illegal for your landlord to hold your mail hostage.

That said, this generally allows optional fees - they just need to be disclosed, have clear opt-in and out, and cannot be profit centers for the landlord.

[1] https://seattle.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=15702946&GUID=...

Yes this will absolutely raise rents for everyone in order to cover pet damage costs, which can easily reach thousands, exceeding any profit for the lease term. They are the top cause of rental unit damage.

Many smaller landlords will choose to exclude pets entirely in order to keep rental rates competitive.

(I have worked in housing in Seattle and have seen this first hand. And I love pets, have them myself!)

Pet deposit is for that, not pet rent. Or just deposit in general. Humans _can_ cause just as much damage as pets.

This will likely result in more "No pets allowed" leases

Is there data to show that pets actually cause more damage? I see this argument get thrown around quite frequently (often by landlords), but I don't buy that it's a major issue.

Can property owners not just go to small claims court?

> And Seattle has banned every other possible avenue of passing this expense only to the parties responsible (higher deposits).

From the very legislation this article is about:

7.24.040 Fees permitted and prohibited <...> B. A landlord may charge the following fees in addition to rent: <...> 4. Pet damage deposits pursuant to Section 7.24.038;

https://library.municode.com/wa/seattle/codes/municipal_code...

tl;dr: Pet damage deposits may not exceed 25% of the first full month's rent, no other fees are allowed. If I'm reading this correctly the current version of that ordinance was passed in 2016.

land lords assess and charge for damages, regardless of source

why should pets require a monthly, non refundable fee regardless of damages or not?

My main gripe is my building charges $50 more for EV spots and then wants to charge as much as the charging stations, that's a nope for me, I'll just charge while buying groceries

Damage is what damage deposits are for, and Seattle allows pet damage deposits.

I would think that if a pet causes a high amount of real damage, the landlord should still be able to seek remuneration for that damage. They just can't charge for it in advance.

Pet rent seldom has anything to do with damage. If you pay pet rent, and then move out and the property manager finds damage, they make you pay for the damage out of your deposit anyway.

The last place I rented had pet rent AND a deposit. The rent definitely a junk fee. It did not accumulate or get tracked.

Shouldn't there be a kid fee then? Kids are likely to cause damage and everyone is subsidizing it.

It should just be common sense. You have a kid or you have a pet. They damaged the property, you pay it.

I had a pet who caused damage to a rental. I had been paying pet rent, and was also charged for the damage. What exactly was the pet rent covering?

Charge for damage if and when there is damage. Anything else is ridiculous.

Does Seattle allow pet deposits? That seems like a straightforward way to handle that, and it's what I've seen when renting elsewhere.

> If you want to know why big, progressive cities have the most unaffordable housing, look no further than this law.

This is an unsubstantiated assertion. I'd want to see evidence that things like this actually move the needle on rent vs things like available housing stock, zoning, etc which seem much more likely to actually impact affordability.

OK so this law, enacted now and not in effect yet, which bans rental fees, is the cause of why big progressive cities that in general do not have this law, have the most unaffordable housing. That's a theory, I guess.

It makes costs more transparent, which means the market works better.

We had legal changes in the UK limiting what fees could be charged to tenants and it had no noticeable effect. The main impact was to stop letting agents charging both landlords and tenants, which reduced what they charge overall.

This is not a comment on more recent changes, or other changes, just those around fees.

Are these unaffordable housing units sitting empty?

If not, then high prices generally comes back to supply and demand, which is driven a lot more by zoning and building restrictions than by small differences in rental law.

Generally cities are expensive because people want to live there, and there is limited space for housing. The US especially has been very restrictive on density in urban and suburban areas compared to counterparts found elsewhere around the world. People wanting to live somewhere and a lack of dense housing for them increases prices.

A lot of arguments against "big, progressive cities" seem to boil down to some form of "See, nobody wants to live in these cities because it's so crowded and expensive!" which doesn't make basic economic sense.

> If you want to know why big, progressive cities have the most unaffordable housing, look no further than this law.

And how exactly does the causality for this work, in your head? Rent is already high in the big, highly desirable cities, before this law.

Is this some new form of retro-causality? A law passed today drove rent up 5 years ago?

Well, the main reason is that locals have a lot of tools to stop construction of housing, and they've been using those tools to prevent new housing from getting built for decades. But yes, this won't do anything to lower costs. It'll just get baked into the rent everyone pays.

Well that's if you believe

> Which, of course, means that non pet owners are now subsidizing pet owners and the damage and wear and tear that pets cause

But most people don't think that all. And I notice that you ignored all the other fees also...

Anyway there are moral arguments against junk fees other than "cost". Nobody actually wants to live in a world where service providers are constantly sneaking fees into things. It's just unjust and shitty. You and I both know that the only reason landlords include pet fees is because they get away with it, not because it's the only way to recoup losses or something like that.

To be fair, it seems like landlords may still ban pets and they are explicitly permitted to have a pet damage deposit.

What an insanely narrow and purposely ignorant opinion. Subsidizing pet owners? Good tenants are subsidizing bad tenants, people w/o kids subsidizing people w/kids. What is the conclusion of your argument? After i sign I do an insurance style risk assessment and they get to tack on a bunch of fees? I don't think a landlord is jacking up prices cause I have a pet and it is insane to think that I would need to pay more than someone else for that reason. I don't think it was about having or not having a pet, it was designed to squeeze as much as you can out of someone. What is the difference between human caused damage or animal caused damage? The person signing the agreement is still liable for whatever damages at the end of the day. Why can't we just leave it at that?

Also, renters of well-behaved, toilet-trained, quiet pets are subsidizing renters with ADHD children.

It bans pet fees, but it does not ban pet damage deposits. Try reading before complaining.

Greystar's near monopoly on rentals is why

> If you want to know why big, progressive cities have the most unaffordable housing, look no further than this law.

Eh, I'd be willing to wager it's because those cites are where many high-paying jobs are.

Anyway:

> Which, of course, means that non pet owners are now subsidizing pet owners and the damage and wear and tear that pets cause.

Or owners can just quantify and charge for the actual wear and tear? If someone's dog digs up the yard or their claws scrape the up wood floors, just charge them to fix it (or, more likely, take it out of the deposit).

That's why these are often viewed as "junk fees", they charge you for some potential damage vs. any actual damage.

From the legislature:

> There is no market incentive to advertise the all-in price of a rental unit. Research by the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research documents individual businesses losing significant market share when switching to all-in pricing. A landlord that advertises an all-in price appears more expensive than competitors with a lower base rent and unbundled fees.

> Rental junk fees represent a market failure and collective action problem that will not self-correct. Regulation of these fees is necessary to level the playing field for landlords who are transparent about their costs and protect renters from unpredictable and predatory pricing models.

This legislature requires transparency in pricing. If landlords could handle that bare minimum of responsibility on their own, without being compelled by law, it wouldn't have been required.

Oh, and pet damage deposits are still legal.

Ridiculous take. It doesn't increase the average rent.

to support the fledgling private pet security industrial complex, who's going to stop the undesirables from dining on our furry friends?

/s

That already exists in many states. The problem is you need to take the landlord to court to recover, if they don't pony up.