Endowed by the ballot harvester electorate and their taxpayer-funded community organizers with a supermajority, California Democrats have nowhere to go but to fulfill every crazy whim of their movement.

Banning single-sex toy sections for kids? Done.

Banning rat traps? Currently in development.

Banning cars? Underway.

But somebody in the California Democratic Party tried to rent an apartment while trying to bring Fido along and was turned down. Time to pass a bill.

A new California bill would require landlords to accept pets.

The bill, formally known as AB 2216, was introduced by Assemblymember Matt Haney (D- San Francisco) and is considered to be the first legislation of its kind in the nation.

The bill is intended to “bar property owners from asking about pets on applications, prohibit additional monthly fees for pet owners, also known as ‘pet rent,’ and limit pet deposits,” KQED reported.

What’s the legal basis for this?

Even by California Democrat legislative standards which pretty much consist of, “well it should be so”, this bill is bonkers.

Existing law regulates the terms and conditions of residential tenancies. Existing law prohibits a landlord from, among other things, preventing a tenant from posting or displaying political signs, subject to specified exceptions.

Existing law, for purposes of specified housing development provisions, defines a common household pet as a domesticated animal, including a dog or cat, that is commonly kept in the home for pleasure rather than for commercial purposes.

This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation related to a landlord’s ability to prohibit common household pets in residential tenancies.

Existing laws bans landlords from preventing tenants from posting signs so they should be forced to accept pets too! Are pet political signs? This is what happens when your legislative people are woke college interns who don’t know anything and your party’s power is so unchecked that you don’t even need to bother with a rationale.

Pet owners would obviously like to bring their cats and dogs along. Shouldn’t however building owners have some say in this?

Apparently not.

The obsessive micromanagement of everything usually tries to invent some rationale grounded in civil rights law, but doesn’t even seem to bother here. The understood premise is that the regulatory powers of government are unlimited and why even quibble about the legal basis for any particular intervention?