California could bar landlords from banning pets at some buildings. Which renters are affected?
Landlords at medium and large rental properties could no longer ban pets without a good reason under legislation that moved through the Assembly this week.
The bill was originally aimed at helping most tenants with pets.
But powerful housing interests got some big changes made.
The housing groups pushed Assemblyman Matt Haney, D-San Francisco, the bill’s author, to change Assembly Bill 2216 to limit the types of units the policy would affect and to allow property owners to charge extra deposits and pet rent.
Tenants currently have little recourse when landlords choose to ban pets entirely, for any reason at all, or charge significant amounts of money for pet rent. Haney also said some tenants with pets have a hard time getting landlords to consider their applications for units.
Haney chairs the Legislature’s five-member Renters Caucus that includes four Assembly members and one senator. The tiny size of the caucus shows the power of the California Apartment Association and similar interest groups in a governing body mostly composed of homeowners.
Although tenants’ rights advocacy organizations push for renter-oriented legislation, they do not have the same clout and lobbying strength.
The Apartment Association spent more than $391,000 lobbying on bills and policy, including AB 2216, from Jan. 1 through March 31, according to Secretary of State’s Office disclosures.
Haney’s original bill would have barred all landlords from banning common household pets — such as dogs and cats — without “reasonable justification.” It also would have prevented them from collecting additional fees related to tenants’ pets.
The amended version of AB 2216 would apply only to properties with 16 or more rentals — properties with 15 or fewer units would be exempt. Landlords could charge a pet deposit of up to half a month’s rent, not exceeding $1,000. The deposit could only be used to cover pet-related damages.
Landlords could not charge an additional monthly fee, or “pet rent,” for the first animal. But they could collect pet rent for additional animals, capped at $50 per animal, per month. Tenants do not need to disclose they have pets when applying for rentals, only before they sign a lease.
About 44% of Californians rent their housing, according to U.S. Census Bureau data. Only about 36% of renters statewide live in buildings with 10 units or more, meaning Haney’s bill will not apply to most tenants.
The assemblyman on Thursday presented his bill on the Assembly floor and announced he had reached an agreement with the California Apartment Association to incorporate the amendments once AB 2216 moves to the Senate. He passed around the chamber a letter from the Apartment Association saying the organization would take a neutral position on the bill with the changes.
The measure passed off the floor with a 46-9 vote.
The Sacramento Bee has reached out to the Apartment Association seeking a comment about the bill.
Tenants have won some victories in recent years. A 2019 bill from former Assemblyman David Chiu, D-San Francisco, capped rent increases and required landlords to provide a “just cause” for evicting tenants if they did nothing wrong.
Haney last year authored a bill capping security deposits at one to two months’ rent, depending on the size of the landlords’ properties.
The assemblyman said that cap helped him negotiate an agreement on the pet bill, because landlords will not be able to charge more for deposits when the new law takes effect on July 1.
In addition to charging tenants fees, landlords would need to accept more pets, Haney said.
“In exchange for that, let’s make sure we’re actually increasing access, he said. “Let’s deal with the way folks have their applications tossed aside just for owning a pet. Let’s eliminate the blanket no pet bans, and let’s get rid of pet rent.”
Haney’s bill now advances to Senate committees.
The story was updated to clarify that properties with 15 or fewer units would be exempt.
