Poll of the Day > "Pet Screening": Holy shit I can't wait till I'm done renting!

(+) Yeah! (+)

My lease is up for renewal, and thankfully I'll be out of here, possibly by the end of the year, but unfortunately not soon enough to avoid needing a new lease.
I should've known they'd pull yet another 1984 on me before I can finally escape.
Now we need to go on some 3rd party "Pet Screening" website in order to renew our lease.

Yet another wonderful creation from the Tech Bros Without Souls dream team!

https://www.curbed.com/2022/05/landlords-pet-revenue-dogs.html

Did you know that pets are one of the largest sources of ancillary revenue in the rental-housing industry and yet some operators are leaving potential revenue on the table by charging their future tenants a flat-fee pet deposit? PetScreening, a North Carolina startup that invented a credit score for pets (a FIDO score), wants you to know this. Its risk-assessment algorithm evaluates pets based on data entered by their owners name, breed, weight, sex, age, pictures, vaccination information, micro-chip data, and behavioral information which it claims is more accurate than unsophisticated landlord assessments. Those judgments often include stereotypes about sizes and breeds. This is unfair to both pitbulls and, possibly, the bichon frise.

Pretending to be an operator who is leaving potential revenue on the table, I entered myself into the sites revenue fetcher worksheet as a 20-unit building owner who charges a $200 flat pet fee. My personalized estimate showed I was only making $1,590 in pet revenue when I could be making a potential $6,201 with PetScreenings services. The automated company email signed off with woof regards.
A FIDO score can range from one paw (very bad) to five paws (very good). Landlords can then set a sliding scale; the more risky the pet is (inclined to bark or walk with a patter-patter-patter rhythm detectable to downstairs neighbors, among other sins), the more a building owner can justify charging their tenant pet rent and fees. (The incentive for prospective tenants to be honest about their pet, we assume, is that they will likely get caught trying to minimize Frank Jr.s tendency toward loud whimpering.)

For the honor of entering their pet into a database that will probably prompt their landlords to charge them more money, owners pay PetScreening a $20 fee for their first pet profile and $15 for each additional pet. (Landlords pay nothing to utilize the service.)

So apparently my cat, which has lived here for many years with no issue, that I already paid a one time non-refundable "pet deposit" for...a pet deposit that was later decreased but I was told I don't get a refund for the difference... that cat, which was grandfathered in when it was convenient for the apartment complex but not now when it's convenient for him not to be... needs all of this info provided at my own cost to some shady shit lord data collection company, for them to assess his "risk factor".

This company appears to be the personification of pond scum, and there BBB comments section is pretty amusing to read thru, including them replying to nearly everyone (1 star reviews, as far as the eye can see!) claiming everyone are liars and frauds (lol):

https://www.bbb.org/us/nc/mooresville/profile/animal-identification/pet-screening-inc-0473-811259/customer-reviews

Needless to say, I will not be doing this. Unfortunately my house hasn't started being built yet and will likely take at least 2 months beyond my current lease ending. So, I guess I will wait till the lease is almost over to see how the house is coming, and weigh my timetable out vs. the eviction process (for having an "illegal pet" -- that was legal until now) and riding it out until I can walk away anyway. I've always been a good tenant, paid on time, etc... Can't believe it's come to this.

Fuck renting. Fuck it so hard. You're so god damned powerless to every single Orwellian intrusion they foist upon you.

This is the future utopia the World Economic Forum wishes for us all.
You will own nothing, and be happy about it! (yikes...)

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/youll-own-nothing-and-be-happy
https://medium.com/illumination/in-2030-youll-own-nothing-and-be-happy-about-it-abb2835bd3d1

I wish I had made haste to escape from this dystopian nightmare sooner. Get the fuck out of renting if you can, it's going to keep getting worse.
Just needed to rant...

We need a law that renters can't disallow pets, if they cause a problem you can kick them out for not controlling their pets but until they actually start causing problems they should be allowed anywhere

Honestly, sign the new lease and just keep your cat, the eviction process is so slow your house should be good by the time he can actually kick you out for it

Muscles posted...

We need a law that renters can't disallow pets, if they cause a problem you can kick them out for not controlling their pets but until they actually start causing problems they should be allowed anywhere

Honestly, sign the new lease and just keep your cat, the eviction process is so slow your house should be good by the time he can actually kick you out for it

I thought you were libertarian? Why would you want to put laws in place that restrict what someone can do with their property in any regard?

Why would a libertarian be against tyrannical rules? Is that really the question you're asking?

Muscles posted...

Honestly, sign the new lease and just keep your cat, the eviction process is so slow your house should be good by the time he can actually kick you out for it

That was my original plan. Just...don't do it and feign ignorance to drag it out.
Scanned the lease renewal notice more thoroughly, and it actually requires doing the pet screening before they'll finish the new lease.
So my new plan is to email my intention to renew the lease for the proper term and monthly rent amount and get their response in writing.
Then if they try to play hardball and not sign my new lease, I can pay the agreed amount and if they accept the payments, it's a tacit admission they agreed to the prior terms.

This shit is ridiculous

Muscles posted...

Why would a libertarian be against tyrannical rules? Is that really the question you're asking?

It's not tyrannical rules. It's free market capitalism.

Just because I don't want the government oppressing people doesn't mean I want businesses to do it in their place. I want liberty for the individual, letting businesses do whatever they want stands in the way of that. Corporate oligarchy isn't libertarianism.

All Landlords Are Bastards

Ah, landlords. The most disgusting socially normalized parasites.

Gaawa_chan posted...

Ah, landlords. The most disgusting socially normalized parasites.

My grandma is a landlord and not like that at all, she always gets stuff fixed right away, and is willing to overlook missed rent, and she's not rich at all so she got really fucked when she had a bad renter, luckily she's had mostly good renters.

Muscles posted...

Just because I don't want the government oppressing people doesn't mean I want businesses to do it in their place. I want liberty for the individual, letting businesses do whatever they want stands in the way of that. Corporate oligarchy isn't libertarianism.

So, if not the government, who is supposed to stop businesses from doing that?

Gaawa_chan posted...

Ah, landlords. The most disgusting socially normalized parasites.

For single family homes, I'm all for massive property tax increases that get waived if it's your primary residency, to push scumbag landlords out of the market and lower house prices for people to buy them to own w/ a mortgage.

In my case, it's an apartment complex. I think apartments are fine and serve a purpose. And until a few years ago they were fine. Massively overpriced, but fine. Tenants could definitely use more rights, though. I think a lot of the shit they've been doing isn't even legal, but no one wants to or can afford to take them to court over it, so it gets a pass.
But they've hit their last straw w/ me now... If they're so god damned petty that they'd take a long-time good and paying tenant to court for an eviction over an "illegal pet" that I paid them for already and has lived here for years, then so be it.
I'd love to hear them explain to a judge how the carpets (which they are legally required to replace when we move out, we've been here so long) or the walls (which need a full repaint it's been so long, again) were SOOOOO damaged (hint: they weren't) by our 10 pound indoors-only cat that they needed a fucking 3rd party to assess his "risk factor".

streamofthesky posted...

So, if not the government, who is supposed to stop businesses from doing that?

That's what I want the government to do, personally, when it comes to protecting the individual. The government is supposed to protect the people, not impose unjust laws on them. Things like safety codes on construction companies making buildings is good, having a fire department is good, breaking up monopolies is good, having a military is good. They should really just stay out of people's personal lives completely. If you want to do drugs, own a gun, have a medical procedure, or something that only effects yourself then who cares

Muscles posted...

That's what I want the government to do, personally, when it comes to protecting the individual. The government is supposed to protect the people, not impose unjust laws on them. Things like safety codes on construction companies making buildings is good, having a fire department is good, breaking up monopolies is good, having a military is good. They should really just stay out of people's personal lives completely. If you want to do drugs, own a gun, have a medical procedure, or something that only effects yourself then who cares

As someone who once thought himself a libertarian and mostly agrees w/ the stances you laid out...that's not what a libertarian is. At least not anymore. Now it's a bunch of crackpots that think driver's licenses are oppression and just exist to try and keep taxes on the rich absurdly low.

Muscles posted...

My grandma

Yes, there are exceptions like this. I am being hyperbolic, but I guess I didn't go over the top enough, lol.

What a shitty company. Only a complete scumbag would have created a company like that.

Muscles posted...

We need a law that renters can't disallow pets, if they cause a problem you can kick them out for not controlling their pets but until they actually start causing problems they should be allowed anywhere

I'm with the renters on this one. Pets cause more damage than humans and the smell is awful; I don't care how precious your animal is. I would imagine they would counter with a higher fee across the board to pay for the cleanup that has to happen when someone with a pet moves out.

I used to have to re-do apartments when I was younger (paint, clean carpets, etc.) - the apartments with pets were almost worse than smoker's apartments.

streamofthesky posted...

For single family homes, I'm all for massive property tax increases that get waived if it's your primary residency, to push scumbag landlords out of the market and lower house prices for people to buy them to own w/ a mortgage.

The problem with any cost-increasing approach is that it tends to disproportionately punish good landlords, who aren't nickel-and-diming their tenants enough to absorb the extra costs in their larger margins. That means it's overwhelmingly them who end up selling, either to slumlords who are much less reluctant to jack rent up as far as they need to cover the new taxes (and then some, while also spending less on upkeep), or to developers that also buy up the rest of the neighbourhood to demolish it and build a complex that avoids the new tax while also being able to take advantage of the higher rents the new tax has generated across the market. The renting class - by virtue of having parasites clinging to them for most of their adult lives - generally doesn't have the capital required to take advantage of small housing crashes like that, so most of the buying opportunities that do show up will be snatched up by those that do have the spare capital to win bidding wars.

Any attempt to control rent needs to be comprehensive, not just increasing taxes or putting caps on how much rent can be increased. Every landlord needs to be required to have some percentage of their properties qualify as "affordable," which should in turn be defined based on median local income and not median local rent (my city defines it as 30% less than median rent, which isn't much help when median rent is more than double what median income can afford). Maintenance and livability standards need to be strictly enforced to keep affordable apartments from turning into slums (combined with assistance programs for landlords that genuinely can't afford to maintain their properties without making them unaffordable). Insurance costs and property taxes for rentals need to be based on rent currently being paid, to prevent market fluctuations from forcing rent increases (or forcing landlords who don't want to hurt their tenants to take a loss).

As much as it'd be nice to stamp out landlords altogether, there is in fact a need for renting, and they do provide an essential service. No matter how accessible the housing market is, there's still going to have to be a transitional period between reaching adulthood and having the necessary capital to buy a house, because merely being able to make mortgage payments isn't enough to cover other costs and risks. Landlords effectively provide insurance: By paying a premium over the actual cost of the property, they take responsibility for whatever goes wrong in the house to keep the tenant from having to deal with large, unexpected expenses. As a stepping stone to ownership, that's pretty unavoidable. The problem is that the market has been inflated by overzealous investors such that the capital needed to buy a house is very difficult to attain, made worse by greedy investors driving rent costs so high that amassing any capital is a challenge.

Muscles posted...

and she's not rich at all so she got really f***ed when she had a bad renter, luckily she's had mostly good renters.

This is what really bugs me, because it's something so many landlords use to justify charging high rents, and it's actually a legitimate excuse for many (especially those that generally don't try for excessively high margins and therefore don't have a huge safety net), but it's also really easy to fix:

• Mandate video walkthroughs with the tenants and landlord at the beginning and end of each lease, with both parties having a copy, to provide concrete evidence of who's responsible for any damages if a dispute arises. If the landlord doesn't do this, side with the tenant by default. If there is evidence of the tenant refusing to allow the walkthrough, side with the landlord by default
• If the tenant is found liable for damages and/or missed rent, the government pays the landlord the amount owing (receipts and some manner of common sense check needed, of course, to avoid paying $400 for a can of paint and 20 minutes of labour)
• The government negotiates a repayment plan with the ex-tenant, including garnisheeing wages if necessary

A lot of people will look at this and jump to "why should taxpayers pay for bad tenants?", but it makes a lot more sense to have taxpayers collectively pay for them than to have them subsidized entirely by good tenants (who are almost always going to be less capable of providing that subsidy than the average taxpayer), which is what "I need to keep rent this high in case I get bad tenants." It also ultimately won't end up being that much of a subsidy, because if there's one thing everyone can agree the government is actually capable of doing, it's taking money it believes it's owed from lower-middle class people.

The system as it stands doesn't do anywhere close to enough to protect good tenants (the vast majority of tenants) from bad landlords, nor good landlords (a decidedly smaller proportion of landlords, but still more significant than many might like to believe) from bad tenants, and the result is a market that keeps giving more and more power to bad landlords who fall back on their lack of protections as an excuse for needing that power. Install some proper protections, and you can start making real progress on controlling rent.

Of course, the fact that most politicians who have the power to change these things also own investment properties means getting anything done is a challenge. Pretty much none of them are willing to do anything that will lower their own rental income, so the rest of us suffer.

Muscles posted...

That's what I want the government to do, personally, when it comes to protecting the individual. The government is supposed to protect the people, not impose unjust laws on them.

yeah, uh, you aren't actually a libertarian LMAO

Some people choose to live in pet free apartment due to severe allergies, making it illegal for places to be pet free would fuck those people over.
Also imo, dogs in high rise apartments is just cruel to the dog. Having to go down an elevator just to piss or shit, that isnt fair to the dog.

agesboy posted...

yeah, uh, you aren't actually a libertarian LMAO

Also this. Being a libertarian involves quite a bit more than just picking a couple of issues and saying "this doesn't need to be regulated by the government." At its core, it's a philosophy of minimizing government involvement as much as possible and letting society sort itself out.

adjl posted...

The problem with any cost-increasing approach is that it tends to disproportionately punish good landlords, who aren't nickel-and-diming their tenants enough to absorb the extra costs in their larger margins. That means it's overwhelmingly them who end up selling, either to slumlords who are much less reluctant to jack rent up as far as they need to cover the new taxes (and then some, while also spending less on upkeep), or to developers that also buy up the rest of the neighbourhood to demolish it and build a complex that avoids the new tax while also being able to take advantage of the higher rents the new tax has generated across the market. The renting class - by virtue of having parasites clinging to them for most of their adult lives - generally doesn't have the capital required to take advantage of small housing crashes like that, so most of the buying opportunities that do show up will be snatched up by those that do have the spare capital to win bidding wars.

Yeah, it sucks for the few good landlords. But it'd help millions of people trapped in a cycle of endless renting and rent increases.
And the "buying opportunity" would not be like any other.
Those "homestead taxes" would stay. Institutional investors wouldn't just jump in to buy things up like other housing crashes -- they'd be the ones causing the crash as they desperately flee their investments that are about to turn into debt traps, trying not to be the last one out the door. If holding a property is gonna cost them 20% (for example) per year in additional taxes, it's no longer attractive as an "investment", which is entirely the point...

Any attempt to control rent needs to be comprehensive, not just increasing taxes or putting caps on how much rent can be increased. Every landlord needs to be required to have some percentage of their properties qualify as "affordable," which should in turn be defined based on median local income and not median local rent (my city defines it as 30% less than median rent, which isn't much help when median rent is more than double what median income can afford). Maintenance and livability standards need to be strictly enforced to keep affordable apartments from turning into slums (combined with assistance programs for landlords that genuinely can't afford to maintain their properties without making them unaffordable). Insurance costs and property taxes for rentals need to be based on rent currently being paid, to prevent market fluctuations from forcing rent increases (or forcing landlords who don't want to hurt their tenants to take a loss).

Again, the point of an extra tax on non-primary residences is to not increase cost at all for people just living in the one home they own and to severely punish those that buy up entire blocks of housing.

As much as it'd be nice to stamp out landlords altogether, there is in fact a need for renting, and they do provide an essential service. No matter how accessible the housing market is, there's still going to have to be a transitional period between reaching adulthood and having the necessary capital to buy a house, because merely being able to make mortgage payments isn't enough to cover other costs and risks. Landlords effectively provide insurance: By paying a premium over the actual cost of the property, they take responsibility for whatever goes wrong in the house to keep the tenant from having to deal with large, unexpected expenses. As a stepping stone to ownership, that's pretty unavoidable.

Yes, and that's what apartments, multi-family homes, etc... can be for.

The problem is that the market has been inflated by overzealous investors such that the capital needed to buy a house is very difficult to attain, made worse by greedy investors driving rent costs so high that amassing any capital is a challenge.

Hence my suggestion above to stop it...

This is what really bugs me, because it's something so many landlords use to justify charging high rents, and it's actually a legitimate excuse for many (especially those that generally don't try for excessively high margins and therefore don't have a huge safety net), but it's also really easy to fix:
* Mandate video walkthroughs with the tenants and landlord at the beginning and end of each lease, with both parties having a copy, to provide concrete evidence of who's responsible for any damages if a dispute arises. If the landlord doesn't do this, side with the tenant by default. If there is evidence of the tenant refusing to allow the walkthrough, side with the landlord by default

Sure. I insist on a walkthrough w/ the landlord after my first experience moving out of a rental...

* If the tenant is found liable for damages and/or missed rent, the government pays the landlord the amount owing (receipts and some manner of common sense check needed, of course, to avoid paying $400 for a can of paint and 20 minutes of labour)
* The government negotiates a repayment plan with the ex-tenant, including garnisheeing wages if necessary

There's already security deposits for this purpose. They withhold it until they verify the property and deduct expenses from it. If anything, the law is too generous for the landlords.
First place I rented was from a legit slumlord, and even though there was nothing (additional) wrong when I moved out, he didn't give my deposit back and tried ghosting me.
I had to hunt down his physical address and stake it out to verify he lived there, then get a lawyer to call him and threaten action.
Then he gave me the money back, but made me sign that I wouldn't seek any more from him.
THEN the lawyer gave me a $400 bill for the 5 minute phone call.
So excuse me if I don't feel pity for the landlords when it comes to security deposit stuff...

streamofthesky posted...

Those "homestead taxes" would stay. Institutional investors wouldn't just jump in to buy things up like other housing crashes -- they'd be the ones causing the crash as they desperately flee their investments that are about to turn into debt traps, trying not to be the last one out the door. If holding a property is gonna cost them 20% (for example) per year in additional taxes, it's no longer attractive as an "investment", which is entirely the point...

It'd have to be enough tax to make it impossible to fill the rental and still turn a profit, otherwise they'll just pass it on to the tenants and the renting situation will get worse for everyone, and that's quite a bit. Even then, if property values crash because everyone's selling, that in turn lowers the property taxes such that owning a rental becomes more viable, so those that already have the capital to buy are still going to be more likely to snap them up than people that are currently stuck renting. A crash like that would get a few renters who have almost made it to ownership out of the mire, but most won't be so lucky and will just end up at the mercy of whoever ends up buying the property after the price tanks (who will likely bulldoze and develop it, if that extra tax doesn't apply to apartment buildings).

streamofthesky posted...

Yes, and that's what apartments, multi-family homes, etc... can be for.

Apartments are rentals, and the other alternatives aren't always viable. There are stepping stones that can work better than renting, but there will always need to be some degree of rental market to bridge the gap between moving out and owning a home.

streamofthesky posted...

There's already security deposits for this purpose. They withhold it until they verify the property and deduct expenses from it. If anything, the law is too generous for the landlords.

That idea would replace security deposits. If your damage costs are guaranteed to be reimbursed, after all, there's no need for a deposit, which in turn means no opportunities for scummy landlords to withhold the deposit without justification, and on the flip side, no need for landlords to increase rent for other tenants if a bad one causes more damage than their deposit covers (which happens fairly often, and chasing them down for the extra money is generally more hassle than it's worth, which is why everyone else's rent has to make up the difference).

Pets still might be a sticking point, though, since one of the main ways they can rack up extra costs is by leaving bad smells behind, and that wouldn't show up in a video walkthrough. That's kind of hard to solve without having a third-party arbitrator come in before the lease ends to verify the smell complaints, which costs extra money that would have to come from somewhere (though, again, having that cost defrayed among all taxpayers instead of being covered by what's left over from pet deposits that don't get used is generally a better idea), but it's not impossible to solve.

adjl posted...

Also this. Being a libertarian involves quite a bit more than just picking a couple of issues and saying "this doesn't need to be regulated by the government." At its core, it's a philosophy of minimizing government involvement as much as possible and letting society sort itself out.

How is what I said not a philosophy of minimizing the government? Keep a military, and make sure businesses don't turn the country into a lawless corporate oligarchy is all I ask for from them, everything else they can fuck off with

Muscles posted...
Muscles posted...

How is what I said not a philosophy of minimizing the government? Keep a military, and make sure businesses don't turn the country into a lawless corporate oligarchy is all I ask for from them, everything else they can fuck off with

Because it's unreasonable government interference regarding the control of property you own. That's not libertarian.

Muscles posted...

How is what I said not a philosophy of minimizing the government? Keep a military, and make sure businesses don't turn the country into a lawless corporate oligarchy is all I ask for from them, everything else they can fuck off with

Libertarian philosophy tends to explicitly include letting businesses do whatever they want (short of like murder or whatever), under the belief that a free market will regulate itself.

Start meeting got punted to this week, but at least my permit's finally approved.
I just want to get started on the house so I can get out of here ASAP

agesboy posted...

yeah, uh, you aren't actually a libertarian LMAO

Uh, big WHOA. Are you saying that Muscles, of all users, might not know what the fuck he's talking about?!