It is a frustrating experience to those who have animals and live in apartments, or other close quarters, to hear the beating and pounding of smaller humans through walls that should provide peace and quiet to their homes. These individuals, instead of enjoying an environment that should be their sanctuary, are forced to “grin and bear it” while paying exorbitant fees for their own “children.”

I think it is agreed by apartment-dwelling, childless, animal guardians that the number of obnoxious children in apartments is an unnecessary component of living in such an environment, and they would be grateful for an alternative. Having fur, four legs, and a language barrier should not equate to punishment on behalf of their guardians.

Having been privileged to be a pet parent for eight years, and having to live in an apartment for six of those eight years, I have thought long and hard about solutions to this concern. Children and pets require a certain amount of supervision, and it is true that both can pose damage to housing units. However, children are expected to behave in a certain manner, while pets have a minimal understanding of the human language, and it is exactly this concept that will solve our issue. There is another great advantage to my solution: it will stop the terrible practice of parents not disciplining their children, and thereby having terrible small humans running amuck. 

It is calculated that 20% of the population resides in apartment structures, and 41% of households have children under the age of 18. Many in the millennial generation are choosing to own a pet as opposed to having a child. It is from this our solution arises: charge rent for children. 

If pet rent is simply a fee for having the four legged companion stay in the rental space, then a fee should be associated with an additional human staying in that space. Just as much, if not more, chaos is created by those small humans as it is from a fur-child. 

Animals are proven to offer their human companions many health benefits, from additional opportunities for exercise to decreased blood pressure to increased opportunity for socializing with other like-minded individuals. This is evident in the rise of Emotional Support Animals and service animals. With over 6.5 million companion animals in shelters, and 1.5 million animals being euthanized each year, pet rent discourages individuals to adopt and, thereby, save an animal’s life. Charging pet rent is the equivalent to punishing someone for providing a loving environment for a living creature.

What is the solution, then? We must charge rent for each child living in an apartment.

Humans cause more destruction to a living environment than any animal could ever make. If, in some instances, we are classifying pets as children, and a pet rent is required, then it logically follows that a child should also have a rent price associated with them. These children, not being able to survive on their own, in similar fashion to a house pet, and requiring similar training, would cost $20 a month, in addition to the monthly rent. This solution ensures all families are treated justly in the housing system, and that no one family is seen as “less of” a family than another simply because the child is a different species.

I want those who would be opposed to this solution, and who may attempt to deliver a response, to sincerely think about the use of this fee we as a society have called “pet rent.” I ask that you approach a pet parent and ask how they feel about pet rent and the other options afforded to them. Requiring a home to live in and not wanting to be without their pet, they will make these unnecessary monetary sacrifices. 

I confess that I am only half-hearted about this endeavor. I consider my own pets to be my children, and in dark days they are my constant companions. Though I confess I do not currently wish to have children, I also would not desire to put undue burdens on parents of any kind. And that is the point entirely.