by Gabriella Samms

Created on: February 23, 2009   Last Updated: February 24, 2009

"Sure, we rent to those with animals, but your love for them will cost you". This is what you won't hear when seeking an apartment that not only will house you and your children; but pets you so desperately need to keep with you. No, that topic comes up later in what is referred to as the monthly "animal fee".

Apartment landlords protect themselves from potential losses by charging tenants a variety of extra costs. Security deposits for possible damages incurred along with upfront rent payments will benefit a landlord if a tenant decides to move suddenly; leaving the rental damaged. Carpet fee deposits ensure that the owner of a complex is able to clean or replace an area within the dwelling that may have been damaged or destroyed by a variety of circumstances including, but not limited too, spilled food, juices or cigarette burns.

Additional fees may also be required if a tenant wants vehicle protection such as carports. If monies are demanded upfront to take possession of an apartment to protect the owners from unsavory or irresponsible renters from damaging any area of the dwelling, then why should an additional monthly fee be put in place for animal ownership? Understandably so, landlords can elect to charge a higher renter's fee for additional people taking up residency or the amount of space offered; but if animals are not seen as humans in society, why are apartment owners allowed to benefit from them as if they were? Furthermore, why are certain types of non-human pets allowed to be kept on the premises without tenants having to pay fees for them? Rabbits, fish, hamsters and even birds are free of charge; dogs and cats are not? Newborn children are not considered an addition to the unit; yet certain four legged friends are.

Security deposits are returned at the end of a lease if a renter leaves the dwelling in the same condition as when first rented; the monthly costs of animal ownership is not. What is more puzzling is that not only are responsible renters subjected to pay fees that will be used for nothing if their animal fails to cause damage; they are discriminated against by the type of non-human companion they can choose in order to avoid additional monthly fees.

If an apartment complex offered an area where animals could relieve themselves and it was written that extra fees charged to animal owners covered the cost of cleaning such an area of waste, then an additional monthly fee would seem appropriate. However, if responsible owners care for the

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>