AB 2216 Withdrawn. Landlord May Still Charge Pet Rent, Pet Deposits and Deny Tenancy to Pet Owners.

 

Good news for Landlords. Bad news for current and prospective tenants with pets. California Assembly Bill 2216 (AB 2216), titled "Tenancy: Common Household Pets," has been withdrawn and is no longer under consideration in the current legislative session. The bill, introduced by Assembly-member Matt Haney in February 2024, aimed to prevent landlords from denying tenancy to renters with common household pets and sought to prohibit the imposition of additional pet-related fees or rent. The bill was met with vigorous opposition by the landlord lobby.

Legislative Journey of AB 2216

AB 2216 was introduced with the intent to address the challenges faced by pet-owning renters in California. The proposed legislation sought to:

• Prohibit landlords from inquiring about a prospective tenant's pet ownership before accepting their application.
• Require tenants to inform landlords of pet ownership plans at least 72 hours before entering into a rental agreement.
• Prevent landlords from denying tenancy based on pet ownership without reasonable justification.
• Disallow the charging of additional rent or fees specifically for pet ownership.

The bill garnered support from animal rights organizations and aimed to increase the availability of pet-friendly rental housing. However, it faced significant opposition from property owners and real estate associations concerned about property damage and the autonomy of landlords to set terms for their properties.

Property owners argued that the decision to allow pets should remain at their discretion, enabling them to make choices based on the specific circumstances of their properties and renters.

Their primary concerns raised included:

• Property Damage: Pets can cause significant damage to rental units, leading to costly repairs that may not be fully covered by pet deposits.
• Allergies and Safety: The presence of pets could affect other renters, particularly those with allergies or fears of certain animals.
• Increased Liability: Rental owners would face increased liability risks, including potential bites or attacks from pets, which could result in legal and insurance complications.
  

Amendments and Opposition

In response to the opposition, several amendments were made to AB 2216 to address concerns:

• Exemptions for smaller properties were introduced, recognizing the unique challenges faced by owners of such units.
• Provisions allowing landlords to charge pet deposits and fees were included, aiming to mitigate potential property damage risks.

Despite these amendments, opposition remained strong. Organizations like the East Bay Rental Housing Association (EBRHA) and the California Rental Housing Association (CalRHA) actively lobbied against the bill, arguing that it infringed upon landlords' rights and could lead to increased operational challenges. Their concerted efforts contributed to the decision to withdraw the bill from consideration.

Ebrha

Implications for Renters and Landlords

The withdrawal of AB 2216 means that the existing regulations regarding pet ownership in rental properties remain unchanged. Landlords retain the discretion to set pet policies, including the ability to:

• Prohibit pets entirely in their rental units.
• Charge additional pet rent or fees to cover potential damages or increased wear and tear.
• Establish specific conditions or restrictions related to pet ownership, such as size or breed limitations.

For renters, this outcome underscores the importance of:

• Reviewing lease agreements carefully to understand pet-related policies and any associated costs.
• Communicating openly with potential landlords about pet ownership to ensure compliance with property rules.
• Seeking pet-friendly housing options proactively, as landlords are not mandated to accommodate pets.

Future Considerations

The debate surrounding AB 2216 highlights the ongoing tension between increasing housing accessibility for pet owners and preserving landlords' rights to manage their properties. While this particular bill has been withdrawn, the issues it sought to address remain pertinent. Advocates for pet-friendly housing may continue to pursue legislative or policy changes in the future.

Both renters and landlords should stay informed about potential new proposals or local ordinances that could impact pet policies in rental housing. Engaging an experienced California landlord tenant attorney or California real estate attorney can help balance the needs and concerns of both parties in the rental market.

 By: Desiree T. Washington, Esq. at Washington Law Firm