Topics that matter to rental housing providers. Insights with impact.

California Is Talking About Pets Again. Housing Providers Should Listen.

Sacramento is taking another look at pets in rental housing. SB 1296 would put new requirements around how pet policies are written and disclosed—while preserving an owner's ability to decide whether pets are permitted in the first place.

But the legislation is also a good excuse to revisit the issues that never went away: unauthorized pets, assistance animals, nuisance behavior, insurance concerns and the sometimes blurry line between accommodating an animal and tolerating an unreasonable tenancy.

We take a look at what SB 1296 would change—and what every California housing provider should already have in their pet policy.

Bay Area Owners Have Seen This Movie Before. Now It's New York City's Turn.

New York City's new pied-à-terre surcharge asks property owners a deceptively simple question: Do you actually live there?

Bay Area housing providers know the question well. From San Francisco's principal-residence rules to Berkeley and Oakland vacancy taxes, governments are increasingly attaching financial consequences to how housing is actually used—and who can prove it.



READ: New York City's Pied-à-Terre Tax Has a Familiar Ring in the Bay Area →

Closer to Home: San Francisco's Own Pied-à-Terre Rules

New York City isn't alone in asking where someone really lives. San Francisco Rent Board Rule 1.21 addresses that question for rent-controlled tenancies—and the answer can have significant consequences.

We've created a one-page practical guide to the Rule 1.21 process.

DOWNLOAD: When a Rent-Controlled Apartment Becomes a Pied-à-Terre →

A NOTE FROM DANIEL

Reflections on Sacramento, pets, and a New York City housing debate with a distinctly Bay Area ring.

We are still in the legislative season, but there is some good news worth recognizing. Thanks in no small part to the persistent advocacy of our industry partners, several bills that would have imposed significant new burdens on California housing providers have been defeated or stalled. We are grateful for that work.

Of course, anyone who follows Sacramento knows that a bill failing in one legislative session does not necessarily mean the end of the proposal. Bad ideas and unsuccessful legislation have a way of returning, sometimes repackaged or rewritten, which is why continued engagement by our industry partners matters so much.

Pets remain very much part of the conversation. SB 1296 would introduce new requirements for disclosing pet policies in rental advertising and applications. We have seen considerable legislative interest in changing the rules surrounding pets in rental housing, and this is an area housing providers should continue watching closely.

Whatever emerges, we hope California preserves an appropriate balance between accommodating renters with pets and the legitimate right of property owners to establish reasonable pet policies for their own properties.

We have also resisted weighing in on New York City's rental housing policies—The Bay Area gives us plenty to talk about. But its new pied-à-terre surcharge raises questions remarkably familiar to anyone who owns rental property in the Bay Area. The parallels were simply too compelling to pass up.

Thank you, as always, for your continued engagement with Bornstein Law and the issues affecting our rental housing community.

Is there a matter top of mind? Schedule a time to talk. Daniel@bornstein.law.

Help us help others. Share with like-minded owners, property managers, and real estate professionals swimming upstream in a complicated regulatory regime.