|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Endowed by the ballot harvester electorate and their taxpayer-funded community organizers with a supermajority, California Democrats have nowhere to go but to fulfill every crazy whim of their movement.
Banning single-sex toy sections for kids? Done.
Banning rat traps? Currently in development.
Banning cars? Underway.
But somebody in the California Democratic Party tried to rent an apartment while trying to bring Fido along and was turned down. Time to pass a bill.
A new California bill would require landlords to accept pets.
The bill, formally known as AB 2216, was introduced by Assemblymember Matt Haney (D- San Francisco) and is considered to be the first legislation of its kind in the nation.
The bill is intended to “bar property owners from asking about pets on applications, prohibit additional monthly fees for pet owners, also known as ‘pet rent,’ and limit pet deposits,” KQED reported.
What’s the legal basis for this?
Even by California Democrat legislative standards which pretty much consist of, “well it should be so”, this bill is bonkers.
Existing law regulates the terms and conditions of residential tenancies. Existing law prohibits a landlord from, among other things, preventing a tenant from posting or displaying political signs, subject to specified exceptions.
Existing law, for purposes of specified housing development provisions, defines a common household pet as a domesticated animal, including a dog or cat, that is commonly kept in the home for pleasure rather than for commercial purposes.
This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation related to a landlord’s ability to prohibit common household pets in residential tenancies.
Existing laws bans landlords from preventing tenants from posting signs so they should be forced to accept pets too! Are pet political signs? This is what happens when your legislative people are woke college interns who don’t know anything and your party’s power is so unchecked that you don’t even need to bother with a rationale.
Pet owners would obviously like to bring their cats and dogs along. Shouldn’t however building owners have some say in this?
Apparently not.
The obsessive micromanagement of everything usually tries to invent some rationale grounded in civil rights law, but doesn’t even seem to bother here. The understood premise is that the regulatory powers of government are unlimited and why even quibble about the legal basis for any particular intervention?
Pets are one of the main problems for landlords.
Yes, if a dog or cat pisses enough on a carpet it can’t be cleaned. Even wood or fake wood floors get ruined. There are plenty of rental properties that accept pets, so there’s no need to force every property owner to allow them.
My building doesn’t allow pets except for service dogs according to the lease terms all us tenants signed but the building has plenty of them and building management doesn’t do anything about it.
Of course, I got a lease violation notice (which I crumpled up in front of the bitch and threw on the hallway floor) because I threw the laundry room trash can out the nearby windview. In my defense, my floor’s laundry room is directly across the hall from my apartment, which is situated in what’s supposed to be a quiet corner off the main hallways, and scumbags kept using the can to prop the door open, even at two and three am. (The room closes from ten pm to 8 am and the door can’t be opened.) Derelicts who have a friend who lives here but the friends are too lazy to unlock the door for them and too scummy to lend them their electric key fob were the ones propping the door open. The sound of clothes pinging around in the dryer (derelicts only have a few outfits so the buttons and zippers make much more noise than a full load does) would wake me from a sound sleep and the building manager refused to do anything about it, even though the last manager was a professional and took care of problems right away. After two years of that shit I flipped out and threw the can out the windview and told the manager “I’m glad I fucking did it, why don’t you do your fucking Job?” I seldom talk to people like that, especially not women, but two years, are you kidding me?
She didn’t replace the trash can. The permanent supportive housing agency located on the first floor told her to stop provoking tenants. Of course, some derelict broke the door handle and the bitch refuses to fix it just to spite me.
I can only imagine what a studio apartment with big dogs in it looks and smells like on the inside. My friend says her dog craps on the floor a lot when she’s gone but I have sympathy for her because we get intimate.
Dogs belong in back yards. Cats aren’t bad indoors except for the hair but any owner who uses a litter box instead of training it to go outdoors is seriously asking for a super nasty stench and cleaning those things isn’t just disgusting, it’s servitude to a cat.
What about landlords that are also allahu’s ackbarbarians, head banging followers of allah the moon-god and its inventor mohammed the pig-faced dog? Will they be forced to allow dogs in their properties, or will they be given a pass?
Have the terrorists at the terror org CAIR chimed in yet?
I would expect more resistance to a Potbellied pigs as some person’s pet.
My thoughts exactly. A good pet if you have an islamopithecine for a neighbor but pigs root, so don’t expect your rental property to stay in good condition. But boy, it would be fun to walk a pig on a leash past a koranimal. “Sic ‘im, piggy!”
No, they will be excepted. Anything else would mohammadean-o-phobia.
Once you’ve accepted the immoral principle that need makes right in part, you’ve accepted it in full, the rest is only a matter of time.
“It is only on the basis of property rights that the sphere and application of individual rights can be defined in any given social situation. Without property rights, there is no way to solve or to avoid a hopeless chaos of clashing views, interests, demands, desires, and whims….
The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.” – Ayn Rand
Whine and moan and whine some more. Wow, another useless lecture from your now deceased goddess, as always with no solution in sight. Your endless, self-indulgent M.O.
So what are you going to do? Demand a new Bill of Rights? Demand we elect only Objectivists. Or, as usual, just howl at the moon.
I don’t know if it has occurred to you but wishin’ and hopin’ for a huge change of outlook and philosophy among 350 million people, is probably not going to work, considering all of the unvetted third world Neanderthals that the Bi-Dumb administration is allowing into the country, who are here only to scam, loot, pillage and murder.
Other than your stupid history lessons and criticisms what have you contributed to the fundamental change you long for?
Why are you offended by philosophy? If you don’t like it, don’t read it. I think you read it, liked it, then hated that you liked it because you then saw the author. This all says more about you than Ayn Rand.
Ayn Rand sucks.
In a word, no. Landlords will have only three viable options: 1) Get out of the housing game, 2) Require a first month/last month/fumigation & “defunkifying” fee up front from pet owners or 3) Prepare to rent smelly properties.
#1. I sleep much better now.
Or determine if a prospective tenant has a pet and then reject them on a false premise if they do.
I am a landlord of some 30 years of experience. All insurance companies that insure apartment buildings require that owners ban large dogs and many breeds such as pit bulls. My guess is it will become much harder and more expensive to get insurance in CA.
I live in CA and got my start as a RE investor there, but now own nothing in CA and will not consider owning a building in CA, except my house.
Everything except for t he Right to Keep and Bear Arms as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, California lead by Idiots Liberal Democrats
“Banning cars? Underway.”
Hilarious. Also, what’s an “underway”?
The CA government is trying to ban cars in favor of EVs, which is impossible.
“Underway” is like your underwear without the shit stains.
This bill is still in its early beginning stage and contains virtually no details. It’s barely off the ground, and it’s possible that it may never reach the senate floor. But if it does, it should be amusing to see Dems perform their gymnastic work-around the Constitution to justify denying one’s right to their property.
The California bill forgot to include insects as well. They have rights to shelter even if they are not paying rent. Look how many have died exposed to the flooding recently in that state. Come on governor, protect the insect world. Otherwise, they will not vote for you. That’s another thing, those insects should have a right to vote, if they were born here.
A little humor for this evening.
Yeah, cockroaches need homes too. They aren’t just food for lefties.
Some screwball Cass Sunstine wants Animals be able to Sue in Court I can just Imagine the cases Tweety vs Sylvester, Wil-E-Coyote vs Acme,
Its illegal to hunt moths under the Streetlights in L.A.
Seriously? I didn’t know people hunt months but they’re not exactly an endangered group of species.’ They aren’t exactly useful like praying mantises and lady bugs.