A new bill this year in the Colorado legislature (House Bill 23-1068) appears to be a solution looking for a problem that will actually cause more problems. Here are the highlights of the bill:

  1. Prohibits landlords from charging additional rent for pets.
  2. Prohibits landlords from charging an additional damage deposit for pets.
  3. Requires the Department of Local to set up a “pet friendly landlord damage mitigation program” where landlords can get reimbursement of up to $1,000 for damages caused by a pet animal, apparently as a way to soften the financial hardship that the bill will cause to landlords.

This primary justification, as stated in the bill, is that too many animals end up in shelters because of “issues related to housing, moving, or landlords.” The bill also suggests that fees and restrictions make it harder for pet owners to find housing, apparently as compared to non-pet owners. This latter purpose represents an instance in which the government regulates private industry to correct perceived economic unfairness – in this case, unfairness to pet owners. However, is it really “unfair” to charge pet-owning tenants more? “Pet rent” and “pet deposits” exist is because pets cause more damage, wear, and tear on rental units. There is nothing wrong with having pet-owning tenants bear that cost. This bill shifts some of the cost to taxpayers with the “mitigation program.” The program gives landlords a possible reimbursement for pet damages, at least, in the words of the bill “on a first come, first served basis.” (The bill does not address where the subsidy money will come from).

There are multiple outcomes from this bill, and none of them are good. First, it might have the intended effect and make it easier for pet owners to find housing, thereby increasing the proportion of tenants who own pets. I don’t see that as a good thing, considering how much conflict pets cause between tenants and landlords. On the other hand, landlords will likely charge everyone more rent and deposits, which makes all tenants worse off and forces the non-pet owning tenants to subsidize the pet-owners. Finally, landlords may simply stop renting to pet owners altogether, thereby making worst the very thing the bill purports to fix.

Photo of Jeff Cullers Jeff Cullers

Colorado Dirt Law is maintained by Jeffrey Cullers, an attorney in northern Colorado. I completed my J.D. in 2008 at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas. After briefly practing in Texas, I moved to Denver, Colorado to study natural resources and environmental law

…

Colorado Dirt Law is maintained by Jeffrey Cullers, an attorney in northern Colorado. I completed my J.D. in 2008 at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas. After briefly practing in Texas, I moved to Denver, Colorado to study natural resources and environmental law at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, obtaining an LLM in 2010. I then practiced at law firms in both Colorado and Wyoming focusing on property rights, federal land issues, and litigation. In 2015, I joined Herms & Herrera in Fort Collins, Colorado. My practice focuses on real estate matters general civil litigation.

Since I am a Colorado attorney, Colorado Dirt Law seeks to provide information and commentary regarding Colorado property right matters specifically, however, national matters and trends may come up as well. My passion for this practice area originates in the belief a free and economically productive society depends on strong private property rights, supported by a strong legal system.

Read more about Jeff CullersEmailJeff's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less