CONNECTING ANIMAL WELFARE TO SOCIAL ISSUES: ANIMALS AND HOUSING
Rescue, foster, build larger shelter spaces, spay/neuter. These are the words we in the animal welfare community hear without pause. These words are directed not just to professionals but to volunteers and to the general public as well. These are important words and they are necessary strategies for dealing with the escalating crises being experienced by shelters across the country.
In fact, the greatest disagreements in the community at the moment are how to rescue, how to foster, how to build larger shelter spaces, and how to spay/neuter. The greatest and most inflammatory debate at the moment is about the “no kill” movement and whether that is fair to both humans and animals. Much energy is spent on these internal debates.
Seattle Animal Watch supports robust dialogue about life-saving work but we also believe that there must be increased focus on how to prevent animals from arriving at shelters in the first place, and this means more than just spay/neuter. This means delving into socioeconomic issues and highlighting how animal welfare can be an indicator of how a community is doing. When animals are being surrendered in high numbers, we must ask why and make the connections. Once we make the connections ourselves, we must emphasize these in our political activity even if animal welfare is ultimately not a primary consideration of the decision-makers.
This post highlights a recent example. One of the factors driving shelter surrenders is housing costs. While the recent junk fees ban by the Seattle City Council includes a much-needed ban on pet rental fees, we must recognize that animal welfare was not the main driver of this decision. It was incidental as are most animal welfare issues when it comes to the City of Seattle and its policy decisions.
We must be honest with ourselves. Our local government will continue to ignore or sideline animal welfare because it does not believe that animal welfare advocates are organized. They do not fear animal welfare advocates because there is no organized voting and lobbying bloc. As a result, making connections to social issues like housing and junk fees is currently the only way to get their attention.
Pet Rental Fees Impact Animal Welfare
Pet rental fees are recurring monthly charges added to the base rent by a landlord for allowing a pet to live in the rental property. For many renters, particularly those in lower-income brackets, these additional fees can present a significant financial hurdle. These fees can disproportionately affect renters who may already struggle to afford housing. It could potentially force them to choose between keeping a beloved companion and finding housing.
These fees may even discourage pet ownership by pushing renters toward housing options that are less secure or even pet-restrictive. Many pet owners view their animals as family. Pet rental fees are essentially financial penalties for having companion animals.
A recent study in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, “Housing-related companion animal relinquishment across 21 animal shelters in the United States from 2019-2023,” analyzed animal shelter intake records from 21 shelters, across 15 states, in the U.S. to evaluate the frequency of housing-related pet relinquishments between 2019 and 2023. While nearly 54% did not specify the exact housing-related challenge that led to relinquishment, the study found that 5.4% of animal relinquishments during this period were due to loss of home, 5.2% for the unhoused, and 8.4% were due to landlord issues.
Seattle Bans Pet Rent as Part of Junk Fees
In August 2026, the Seattle City Council passed the most significant animal welfare law in recent years. Ironically, the primary motivation for it had little to do with animal welfare.
Ordinance 121254 bans “junk fees” on renters starting July 1, 2027. Junk fees are hidden, unexpected, or mandatory add-on charges that companies tack onto the cost of goods and services. They often appear late in a transaction, obscuring the true price. In this case, the “junk fees” are rental charges that may not be clearly stated when the rental is being advertised. This makes it difficult for prospective tenants to anticipate costs when comparing options. These “junk fees” often include pet rental fees.
The City of Seattle had two primary rationales for passing this ordinance. First, renters should be able to see the full expected cost of a rental before signing. Second, landlords should only charge fees specifically permitted by Seattle or Washington law, along with qualifying optional services that residents affirmatively choose.
Prior to the final vote, Councilmember Bob Kettle of District 7 (Belltown, Queen Anne, Downtown, etc.) proposed amendments that would allow a $25 minimum rental fee for large dogs and remove the word “junk” from the term “junk fees.” These amendments did not pass. Eventually Councilmember Kettle joined the rest of the council with a unanimous vote to pass the ordinance.
Housing and Animals Are Statewide and National Issues
Seattle is not the only major city addressing pet rental fees. In 2026, the Pets in Housing Act (aka “Roscoe’s Law”) went into effect in Washington, DC,, capping pet rent at $25 monthly, or 1% of the rent, whichever is lower, and prevents landlords from denying housing solely based on a pet’s breed, weight, or size. But animals and housing are not just local issues, they are statewide and national concerns as well. The connections between animal welfare and social issues such as housing are real but the road is difficult and the forces against them are powerful.
There is still no statewide ban on pet rental fees here in Washington. Major opposition at the state level comes from groups like the Rental Housing Association of Washington (RHAWA) which represented smaller landlords. These groups argue that while wealthier cities like Seattle might have the rental demand to absorb a ban, smaller mom-and-pop landlords in rural Washington would be financially devastated by pet damages without upfront fees. Proposals die in committee due to fears that a statewide ban would cause landlords to pull out of the market entirely.
Various housing advocates have floated draft bills aiming to mirror European housing models, which would make blanket "no-pet" policies illegal unless a landlord can prove a specific safety hazard. These concepts have repeatedly failed to gain traction in Olympia. Real estate lobbies successfully argue that forcing property owners to accept animals violates basic private property rights and compromises the safety of other tenants who may have severe allergies.
At the federal level, the “abolish pet rent” national campaign has urged Congress to place a federal cap on pet deposits and completely eliminate monthly pet rents. However, the federal government traditionally leaves landlord-tenant contract laws up to individual states. As a result, the pet rental fees issue has largely been absorbed into the broader “no junk fees” movement.
For example, the Pets Belong With Families Act is a bipartisan effort. Representative Jason Crow (D-CO) and Representative Mike Lawler (R-NY) introduced the bill to the House of Representatives in the 2025-2026 session while Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA) introduced it to the Senate. The bill prohibits public housing authorities from banning dogs such as German Shepherds or Pit Bulls based on breed, size, or weight. It also seeks to place federal caps on pet deposits in public housing. Despite having bipartisan co-sponsors, the legislation has stalled due to a lack of urgency as well as the argument about the financial costs of property maintenance in underfunded public housing.
For the moment, pet rents and deposit issues are best addressed at the state and local levels. Unfortunately, there is likely to be little momentum unless constituents consistently pressure their representatives or, like in Seattle, the bill is incorporated into a larger bill that encompasses other priorities. We must learn to make those connections and capitalize on them for the benefit of our animal friends.
Sources:
