Behind the RENT Ordinance: Part 6

Pets, Deposits, and One-Size-Fits-All Policies: How O-25-88 Overreaches Again

For many housing providers, policies around pets and deposits are essential tools to protect their properties, manage liability, and ensure a safe living environment for all tenants. But under Ordinance O-25-88, those tools would be significantly restricted—regardless of the property type, location, or history of past damages.

In this sixth installment of our blog series on the RENT Ordinance, we’re spotlighting a less-talked-about but equally troubling issue: how O-25-88 limits landlord flexibility when it comes to animal policies and deposits.

What’s in the Ordinance?

O-25-88 includes a series of rules that impact how landlords handle pets, support animals, and security deposits. If passed, the ordinance creates multiple issues due to:

• Ambiguous definition of companion animal as any "domesticated animal" creates a legal gray area 
• Forces property owners to accomodate any tenant's animal, regardless of breed, size, or type including those not traditionally suited for rental housing
• Prohibits charging any pet rent and sets a limit pet deposit amount 
• Create a “one-size-fits-all” policy regardless of property condition, animal suitability, history of pet damages, or insurance requirements

While fair housing laws already prohibit discrimination against service animals, O-25-88 goes further by removing a landlord’s ability to protect themselves against claims or animal-related damage.

Why This Matters

Housing providers are not trying to block tenants from having animals—they’re trying to ensure properties are protected and that shared living environments remain safe and well-maintained. Pet deposits and reasonable pet rent are common practices across the country and reflect real costs associated with cleaning, repairs, and liability.

By capping deposits and restricting protections, O-25-88 shifts those financial risks entirely onto the property owner—whether they rent a 200-unit complex or a single-family home.

Worse, the lack of clear guidelines around animals opens the door to abuse and legal confusion—placing both landlords and responsible tenants in difficult positions.

A REALTOR® Perspective

REALTORS® understand the importance of balancing tenant rights with property protections. While accommodations for legitimate support animals are already protected under federal law, O-25-88 swings too far in the other direction—eliminating safeguards that allow property owners to maintain clean, safe, and habitable rentals for all residents.

We support fair housing, but not mandates that ignore practical realities and create new risks without recourse.

Stay Informed. Stay Ready.

As of now, Ordinance O-25-88 remains stalled—but not dead. Because it wasn’t formally withdrawn, it could return at any time, including at the next LUPZ meeting on Wednesday, August 13th.

We’ll be ready—and we hope you will be too. REALTORS® remain committed to working with all stakeholders to find solutions that are fair, balanced, and grounded in the real-world responsibilities of housing providers.

Watch for Next Week's Blog

Unprotected Tenants? O-25-88 Fails to Require Renters Insurance