[liuhenry]

Logically, the "surcharge for potential damage" should be a security deposit, or fines and penalties against specific behavior.

You'd have the same issues with tenants that were excessively noisy, or held parties and spilled alcohol in the hallways, or scratched doors/walls/floors from moving bikes, furniture, etc. So it seems inconsistent to apply the nonrefundable fee only to the case of pets.

[joegahona]

Yes exactly. Or toddlers, who cause much more damage than pets. Good luck charging people "toddler rent."

[1123581321]

Toddlers predominantly damage fragile personal items. Pets damage walls, doors, floors and furniture. Additionally, pets, especially dogs, are capable of many times more destruction in a short amount of time.

[joegahona]

“Fragile personal items” like houses:

https://www.wndu.com/content/news/Dowagiac-house-fire-sparke...

https://www.myarklamiss.com/louisiana-news/child-playing-wit...

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/23/child-linked-...

https://www.fox13now.com/2015/07/25/fire-crews-respond-to-2-...

https://www.ajc.com/news/local/kids-playing-with-lighters-ca...

[1123581321]

Those are obviously unusual stories. Catastrophic fire is covered by insurance. It is not factored into rent and security.

Pets don’t make the news when they ruin dwelling places, as it is relatively common compared to that.

[lotsofpulp]

I have 2 decades of experience in the hotel business, and pets cause much, much more damage than toddlers. The total of pet fees collected never made up for all the damage caused. And tons of people would lie about their animal being a service animal(s). With no shame, they would declare all 3 dogs they have service animals.