More crazy from the DC Council-- designed to make apartment living even riskier

[Anonymous]

Apparently it is now "racist" for landlords to require reasonable restrictions on type/size of pets.
And, to play this forward, when a child is mauled by a tenant's uncontrolled pit bull/rottweiler etc., existing landlord tenant law in DC will make it impossible for the landlord to actually evict the dog owner.
Does the DC Council seriously not have anything better to do?





https://lims.dccouncil.gov/downloads/LIMS/55521/Committee_Report/B25-0827-Committee_Report1.pdf?Id=201750

[Anonymous]

The CFO doesn't like it: "Funds are not sufficient in the fiscal year 2025 through fiscal year 2028 budget and financial plan to implement the bill. The bill will cost $642,000 in fiscal year 2025 and $2.4 million over the four-year budget and financial plan."

[Anonymous]

Why does this cost funds?

[Anonymous]

This is the way the Council works now. They pass some sort of nonsense that no one except for their extremely left-leaning supporters is calling for but never take the time to work out the financials. That way they can say, "Well we tried but Bowser's CFO won't pay for it."

It's all so brazenly performative and does nothing to actually make the city a better place to live. In fact, the Council's lack of interest in passing common-sense laws that would actually benefit DC residents is actively hurting DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why does this cost funds?

Someone will have to enforce the law. Those people probably would like to get paid for doing their job.

[Anonymous]

Yet the landlord still has liability if someone is attacked by a dangerous dog on their property.

[Anonymous]

I didn't read all 48 pages, but it seems like a landlord can still mandate no pets in their rentals.

Also, it was funny reading about "pet equity" where it wouldn't be equitable to have a rental charge per each small animal like a fish, a bird, or a hamster.

[Anonymous]

Get pets out of apartments anyway. Only allow service animals, and not the bs emotional support animal crap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Apparently it is now "racist" for landlords to require reasonable restrictions on type/size of pets.
And, to play this forward, when a child is mauled by a tenant's uncontrolled pit bull/rottweiler etc., existing landlord tenant law in DC will make it impossible for the landlord to actually evict the dog owner.
Does the DC Council seriously not have anything better to do?





https://lims.dccouncil.gov/downloads/LIMS/55521/Committee_Report/B25-0827-Committee_Report1.pdf?Id=201750

I think the law is ridiculous. But why lead with racist? All it says is that there were many dog breeds that were popular among black and brown communities in the past. Don't paint it as that.

Just say that the law is terrible, which it is.

[Anonymous]

This is why Robert White will never be mayor.

[Anonymous]

This will probably get overturned.

[Anonymous]

This is the stupidest thing I've ever read.

No one is entitled to have a pet in an apartment! And yes different breeds, species, and sizes of pets are more likely to cause damage or become a nuisance to others in the building. The idea that specifying that animals be under a specific weight is a way of preventing people from bringing in large dogs who will rip up floors and be much louder for neighboring apartments.

The bill will also have the opposite impact of what they claim is the goal -- to make housing more equitable for black and brown renters with pets. In reality, this ridiculous restriction is going to cause a lot of landlords to simply have a flat "no pets" rule when actually they would be fine with cats and small dogs, because apparently it's racist to say "no large dogs" or "no pit bulls". So it will now be harder to find units that take pets at all.

The DC Council is a menace. They should simply be disbanded. They are just a steaming pile of stupid at this point. Impeach them all.

[Anonymous]

Landlords can pass the cost/liability onto pet owners. They can call it pet rent or pet expense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is the stupidest thing I've ever read.

No one is entitled to have a pet in an apartment! And yes different breeds, species, and sizes of pets are more likely to cause damage or become a nuisance to others in the building. The idea that specifying that animals be under a specific weight is a way of preventing people from bringing in large dogs who will rip up floors and be much louder for neighboring apartments.

The bill will also have the opposite impact of what they claim is the goal -- to make housing more equitable for black and brown renters with pets. In reality, this ridiculous restriction is going to cause a lot of landlords to simply have a flat "no pets" rule when actually they would be fine with cats and small dogs, because apparently it's racist to say "no large dogs" or "no pit bulls". So it will now be harder to find units that take pets at all.

The DC Council is a menace. They should simply be disbanded. They are just a steaming pile of stupid at this point. Impeach them all.

I’ve had large dogs all my life and not one has ripped up a floor. Nor have they been loud (it’s been our small dogs who have been yappy). Every dog is different so it’s useless to stereotype based on size.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Landlords can pass the cost/liability onto pet owners. They can call it pet rent or pet expense.

The bill limits that to $25 per pet and a max $300 security deposit.