this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2025
405 points (99.5% liked)
Funny
14195 readers
1172 users here now
General rules:
- Be kind.
- All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
- Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
- No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
- Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.
Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't think ita unreasonable to do so, but it should not be in addition to the deposit. Should be one or the other.
Like, over time it's more likely for damage from pets to build up and can easily get over $250 after a year or two.
But good luck getting over $250 damage in 2-3 months.
So I would see it reasonable to charge per month per pet, in the assumption that there will be damages to fix building up over time.
deposit is the only acceptable thing here… rent? no way! you don’t pay rent per person in the house. the landlord is losing nothing per month for your pet
the potential damages come from the additional deposit/bond
So a pet should have a deposit or added rent but not a child? Or a second tenant? Is none of this the point of an overall damage deposit
Slippery fuckin slope.
landlord can't legally charge more for children
Hmm I wonder why, maybe because they tried and people were sensible enough to push back.