Cat Owners Complain About Inequities of Paying Pet Rent

Q The rationale that apartment managers gave for pet rent in your last column concentrated on damage to common areas by pets and their irresponsible owners. I won't argue that this damage happens or that management companies have to find some way to recoup the costs. However, apartment complexes that charge pet rent to dog owners also charge these fees to cat owners. Apartment-dwelling cats are exclusively indoor creatures. I can assure you that my cat has never even seen the hallway outside my unit, never mind made a mess of the landscaping!

If I am going to pay out of pocket for any damage my cat causes in my unit and my cat does not ever enter the common areas of the apartment complex, why exactly am I paying pet rent? Where could this money possibly be going, if not for the common areas and not for possible repairs in my unit?

Keep in mind that, like most pet owners, I put down an extra deposit too. Is it because the fee has to be applied without discrimination, and a pet is a pet? I hesitate to believe that; pet rent is not charged to people with gerbils or tropical fish. -- Silver Spring

AYou are not the only cat owner who weighed in after reading the explanation in this column two weeks ago from Heather Campbell, a spokeswoman for Colorado-based apartment company Archstone-Smith. Campbell said that her employer charges a nonrefundable pet fee and pet rent every month because of extra wear and tear to common apartment building areas. She also stated that any damage that pets cause to the units is independent of pet fees.

Not surprisingly, those with declawed indoor cats complained about paying $25 or more per month for their animals when their neighbors pay the same amount for 85-pound dogs, who were the culprits in this extra common-area wear and tear.

Perhaps these cat owners are biased, but they say it would not be discriminatory to charge differently for cats and dogs, especially because there are deposits based on pet size at some apartment complexes.

Many readers view pet rent as a money generator for landlords, especially when it is charged for cats. They contend that caring owners do not allow their cats to roam outside because of dangers they would face from cars and dogs. They also contend that in the event that cats wander off on their own, they still do not wreak havoc. They do not bark loudly day and night, and declawed cats don't wear down the carpet any more than toddlers do.

Michele Giarrusso's complaints about pet rent are a bit stronger than others. The Fairfax dog trainer said, "If landlords really cared about lessening maintenance and damage, they would seek to better the lives of pets and owners who seek to rent their properties rather than allowing disreputable pets and/or people to rent from them and charging them a fee."

She said, "Pet rent is a scam, at best. . . . It should be outlawed."

Cat owners who are against monthly pet fees seem to have a point. But apartment management companies that charge pet rent argue otherwise.

Campbell clarified her stance on her company's reasoning about charging pet rent for dogs and cats.

"It's been our experience that house cats can cause as much damage in apartments as dogs do in the common areas," she said.