If I have a serious wreck in my car, I win the insurance bet—that is, it may well pay out more than I've paid in. Even crappy health insurance policies have cases where they do the same.
Not so with pet deposits in any lease I've seen. They take your money, which is usually non-refundable, and will still charge you for any cleaning and repair not covered by the deposits you paid.
Perhaps it's insurance from the landlord's perspective, but it's an added cost the tenant bears that offers them no financial protection at all.
The extra money isn't meant to protect you (the tenant) from anything. It's there to protect the landlord's interest in being able to recoup losses caused by a destructive pet.
If a landlord isn't returning your pet deposit when you move out, it's not a deposit, it's a fee. If they're misrepresenting it as a deposit that will be returned, you might have legal recourse, depending on where you live.
Ah, gotcha. Why is that so objectionable, though? Can you state with certainty that a dog (not specifically your dog, but the average or maybe even a majority of dogs) does not increase wear-and-tear on an apartment at a level that justifies a higher rent? I live in SF, so I'm certainly no stranger to the concept of the greedy landlord who jacks up prices just because they can, but extra pet rent seems entirely reasonable to me and not just a manifestation of greed.
The objection is generally landlords have to show damages to collect compensation from renters. They collect deposits to ensure at least some of the bill gets paid should you damage the place beyond normal wear and tear, but if you leave your home in the condition it was in when you moved in the landlord owes you your deposit back. That makes sense.
What justifies pet deposits being different? What justifies pet rent but not, say, charging extra rent or an extra non-refundable deposit because you have a toddler?
(Is pet rent even collected and applied to the cost of repairing any damage your pet causes? I should find out what's common here.)
As an aside: I've also had a landlord charge almost $5 for a paper statement, or just under $1 to e-mail me a statement instead. (No statement was no option.) They're clearly not above nickel-and-diming their customers—which I found weird because $1 on top of, say, $800 (plausible rent for a two-bedroom unit in not-SF) is nothing—about 0.1% of rent. Which makes it a minor annoyance at worst, but… why bother? $400 (common pet deposit amount in not-SF) + $10/mo (common pet rent, when pet rent is charged) is also nothing—just over 5% of one year's rent. But it's more of a something than a $1 fee for them telling you what you owe this month, which they felt the need to do regardless.
Not so with pet deposits in any lease I've seen. They take your money, which is usually non-refundable, and will still charge you for any cleaning and repair not covered by the deposits you paid.
Perhaps it's insurance from the landlord's perspective, but it's an added cost the tenant bears that offers them no financial protection at all.