Below is a transcript of our interview with Jennifer W. Applebaum and Kevin Horecka, two authors of the new paper Pet-Friendly for Whom? An Analysis of Pet Fees in Texas Rental Housing, which was just published in the journal Frontiers in Veterinary Science. The paper was co-authored with Lauren Loney and Taryn M. Graham.
You can listen to the interview using the audio player above.
Let us know if there’s someone you think we should speak with for a future audio episode!
Arin Greenwood: Hi, this is Arin Greenwood. I’m a writer with HASS. And here I had the pleasure of speaking with two of the authors of an important new study on how pet fees contribute to housing insecurity and what this means for people and pets. The paper is Pet-Friendly for Whom? An Analysis of Pet Fees in Texas Rental Housing. It was recently published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science. We’ll link to it in the notes. Here’s my interview with Jennifer Applebaum and Kevin Horecka. Thanks for listening.
Arin Greenwood: Welcome. Can you both introduce yourself?
Kevin Horecka: Sure, I’m Kevin Horecka. In my day job, I am a principal data scientist at Walmart, and have been working in animal sheltering related research for about 10 years now. But only recently started co-chairing the research organization for HASS and have been working even more recently on the issue of pet fees in housing.
Jennifer Applebaum: Hi, I am Jennifer Applebaum. I’m a PhD candidate in Sociology at University of Florida. I have a master’s degree in shelter medicine from the University of Florida College of Veterinary Medicine. My background is in sheltering. But now I’m more studying the multi species family and pet ownership and social inequalities are kind of generally my interests.
Arin Greenwood: You guys have great backgrounds. I’d like to talk to you about that sometime, too. But for now, why don’t you start by telling me, how did you get interested in looking into pet fees? What was the impetus for doing this research and writing this paper?
Jennifer Applebaum: Sure. Kevin, do you want to start because the project kind of started with you and Lauren talking, right?
Kevin Horecka: Yeah, I think like a lot of these newer topics. It started with a technology ask. We know data exists out in the world on this topic. How do we actually get that? And so that’s how I heard about it originally was someone was trying to get information from a particular, like aggregation website that had all sorts of pet fees and other data.
They knew that data was there, but they didn’t really have a way to get it. And so I jumped in and started helping with getting it. And in the process of deciding what parts of that were important to us, it became clear that there were a lot of really interesting research questions that it would be fun to get to talk about.
And so we pulled together our group of authors and started talking about what was important to us: what’s in the data? What can we actually ask using this, this particular set of data? And really kind of everything just came together after that.
Jennifer Applebaum: Yeah, and I had been interested in pet fees on rental housing for a while because the literature is pretty clear. In terms of pet friendly housing, it’s a problem in the U.S.
But what hadn’t really been kind of investigated yet was this issue specifically of fees on top of monthly rent, especially not kind of at the level that we did it that Kevin’s methodology allowed us to look at it.
Arin Greenwood: So were you trying to figure out the context of pet fees? And I understand what you were actually after there. You were trying to look at, how do pet fees actually affect the families who are paying them. And not just in the obvious way, which is you owe another $200 a month or whatever the fee is, but sort of what does this actually do to your life?
Jennifer Applebaum: Yes, we know from literature that housing issues are often a stated reason for animal relinquishment. So we know it from the animal welfare side. But we also know that there’s this horrible housing crisis in the U.S. that has been worsened by COVID, but has been in existence for a long time prior to COVID.
And Texas is especially pretty, pretty outstanding when it comes to housing inequalities, and especially, you know, in terms of racial housing disparities, and then income, like low income housing issues. It’s particularly prevalent there throughout the U.S. as well.
But that was one of the reasons that we were kind of approaching it from the perspective of the pet owner, rather than what a lot of the literature is done within the animal welfare literature, at least in terms of the reasons for relinquishment, kind of stuff.
Arin Greenwood: So what did you find about how pet fees affect owners? What does this do to a family?
Jennifer Applebaum: Sure, yes, Kevin can take that one.
Kevin Horecka: Yes. So I think the place we started with this was a question of who is affected by pet fees? First, we had some theories that it would have to relate to different elements measured by the Census. That’s a really common data set used in asking these sorts of questions.
And so the first things we were looking at is there a relationship between things like the racial makeup of a census tract, and the prevalence of the pet fees? I guess you could say, fortunately, there wasn’t a relationship there just between whether or not there there was these but then when you start to look at things like income and and other distributional properties that we know relate to race, and that you can confirm in the data, then you start to see a lot of things come out.
And so we decided we needed a metric that would easily describe the effect that we’re really interested in, which is sort of how much burden does the existing fee structure and the way that housing works, as it relates to pets, how much burden does that put on the individual? And so we designed a method that we call burden.
Imagine that you are moving into an apartment for a year. How much are you going to have to pay for the luxury of having a pet? And to be clear, that’s also non-refundable. So we didn’t even look at deposits, which are an entirely separate issue. And also, this is purely non refundable things that is the cost of getting to have the benefits of a pet, in a rental situation. And so that pet fee burden is specifically a year’s worth of your costs divided by the median income for your region.
So we don’t have all the way down to the resolution of individual people and their incomes and how many pets they have and stuff like that. So instead, we have to use the region as a proxy for it. And that turns out to be a really important measure in looking at the connection between, say the race makeup of a particular city or set of census tracts. Inequality also measures into that a lot in terms of income inequality.
And it really just paints a picture of how this is sort of yet another example of a compounded effect of some of the inequalities both across race and across income that we have in our society. And given how much we know about the benefits that pet ownership can bring and how ubiquitous it is to our society. Right now. It’s, there’s so many people who have pets, the majority of people in this country have pets and value pets, that really just the sort of the economic framework within which pets are penalized for lower income renters and people of color, it really just makes an already kind of unfair housing and pet situation worse.
Jennifer Applebaum: I just wanted to add to that to say that there is a disparity in terms of, so I’m really fascinated by the demographics of pet ownership in the U.S. And so we do know that white people tend to own pets at twice the rate of Black people, and you know, Latinx, Hispanic kind of fall somewhere in the middle there.
But I think one of the mechanisms that we start to get at here is these barriers to pet ownership. Kevin touched on this a little bit about, if there are these benefits of pet ownership to health and well being, and even if they’re not good for health, like, specifically, we do know that people are bonded to their pets, right.
And so they are, at least, at the very least, they enhance our lives, right? And so, you know, for people who are bonded to their pets, it certainly can provide a benefit.
And so this is kind of revealing that perhaps, you know, some of the disparities in access to pet ownership are because of these, these housing disparities, right? And who has access to even a place where they can keep their pets. So I think it’s fascinating in that way.
Arin Greenwood: Really fascinating. I’m going to ask you to dumb this down just a tiny bit for a non math person like myself. So when you’re talking about quantifying the burden, can you give me a number for what that looks like? Can you describe that in words that a math challenged person would be able to understand?
Kevin Horecka: Yeah, so let’s say you are signing a new lease for an apartment for a year. And they will often ask you for two forms of payment for your pet. First, they’re going to ask you for a fee upfront, that says we’re going to charge you $500. And that $500 is an entry fee to even have your pet. They frame it like it’s some sort of deposit, you know, as if the pet is going to cause $500 worth of damage guaranteed, and therefore, like, we’re just going to go ahead and pre collect that.
There’s not really strong evidence that that is a justified reason for charging that fee, as far as I’m aware, at least, but they charge it anyway. And then they’re gonna also say pay $100 a month for your 12 months of the lease. So that’s your sort of pet rent components. So what we do is basically just add that $1,200 that you’re going to have to pay in pet rent across the year, and the $500, you have to pay up front, and we end up with a number of $1,700. So it’s going to cost you $1,700 to own a pet in that living situation for one year.
Now, of course, if you stayed for longer, if you stayed for 10 years, you’re only going to have to pay that fee once. So that becomes a relatively unimportant part, and the rent becomes the significant portion. And it would be really interesting actually, to kind of go a step further and look at how often people move. You can imagine things like, towns that have large universities are going to have a lot of people moving in and out, because you know, grad students or undergrads, and especially grad students are more likely to have pets.
But basically, that $1,700 number becomes the cost of having your pet. And then we don’t know what the individual person at any given complex makes. But we do know, given a census tract, which is a relatively small sort of region of space, we can look at what’s the income, median income of that census tract, and then we can look at what proportion of your income with that $1,700 makeup.
So you know, if you, if you were in a relatively low income place, that’s going to be a pretty big proportion of your yearly income, if you’re in a very high income place, that’s going to be maybe a lower amount to you proportionally.
And we know it’s a common, I think, almost idiom at this point, that it’s expensive to be poor. And I think this is sort of an example of that, where $1,700 may not mean a whole lot to someone who makes $100k a year, but it’s going to mean a whole lot to someone who makes $30k a year as a proportion of their income.
And so that’s where that burden number becomes really telling that if you’re paying 6 percent of your income, and you’re also low income, that’s a huge deal.
Arin Greenwood: Yeah, that was exactly the line that I thought when I read your paper, was it how expensive it is to be poor. And one of the things that really jumped out to me in your paper is how all of this tied together the sort of unaffordability of housing to start with, and then how it gets even more unaffordable with pet fees. How this can lead to some abusive situations for the people who are looking to rent with their pets or make them more vulnerable. Can you talk about that a little bit? Is that what you were expecting to find?
Jennifer Applebaum: Um, just to clarify, you mean in terms of how it disproportionately disadvantages these populations? Or…?
Arin Greenwood: Well, how, if, if you can’t afford to pay the pet fees at another place, you’ll stay in a place that’s subpar with a landlord who isn’t fixing things, because you can’t afford to move. How you might stay in a bad apartment where you can sneak a pet in. Because you can’t afford to find a place where you can have your pet legally…these are right, it really humanized these findings.
Jennifer Applebaum: Yeah, and so that’s not those aren’t specifically our findings from previous literature about pet friendly housing. But that is essentially what’s been found, historically is that there are these opportunities for these exploitive situations. And there is a, in some cases, there have been people have kind of framed, offering pet friendly housing as kind of a business opportunity in some places, and, you know, essentially saying, like, you can charge more, you can get your tenants to stay for longer. And, you know, that was framed as kind of positive in a way, historically, for like a business opportunity for landlords.
And we kind of say that that is not the right way to look at it, in our opinion. If you’re thinking of it from a social justice, or animal welfare kind of perspective, if you are seeing it as a way to make more money, then you’re inherently going to limit who can even afford those places.
And then in terms of who has the ability to kind of seek better rental housing or a better landlord relationship or something like that, obviously, if your options are limited to begin with, then you are going to be more stuck in your current situation. And so that can create some potentially exploitive issues. And we’re certainly not saying that this is always the case, but it has it, you know, previous studies have found this to be the perceptions of tenants in these situations.
Kevin Horecka: And, anecdotally, I think a lot of us, you know, me personally, we’ve experienced this very directly. When I went to grad school, I had to live about twice three times the distance from the university than a lot of other students that started with me did because it was the best pet friendly option for me.
And we also had to deal with living next to some train tracks, which creates its own health issues. And so there were compounding effects from the fact that we weren’t going to give up our pets, that wasn’t a negotiable property.
And in the town that we were in, there just weren’t very many good options for if you were a renter, and had pets. And, and in particular, if you had financial constraints, like, if you’re a grad student.
Jennifer Applebaum: Yeah, and there’s also some research that’s shown that for really low income people, keep super housing insecure people who are maybe, you know, their relationship with their pet is like, so instrumental to, to their motivation to, you know, to stay healthy in whatever capacity—that can then create a barrier to them for housing, because they occasionally in some situations, people will choose to live in their car.
I mean, not choose, choose is the wrong term here. But they will be essentially forced to live in their car or some other type of unhoused type of situation, because they are not willing to give up their pet. Because their pet is so important to them.
And so that then leaves them without a choice. And so they’ll choose, choose, right, not really choose, but have to become homeless in order to keep their pet and this this is this has happened, right?
Kevin Horecka: We see this also in natural disaster situations, where it’s a commonly cited reason for failing to evacuate during, say, a hurricane like Hurricane Harvey. That people aren’t willing to leave their pets behind.
And so it puts people in people’s lives in direct danger, if there’s not an ability for them to bring their pet with them for wherever they’re going to go and be temporarily housed.
Jennifer Applebaum: Yeah, and I think on that note…
Arin Greenwood: I’m sorry, no, go ahead.
Jennifer Applebaum: I just wanted to add that on that point. So one of our findings was that Houston was particularly having a lot of overlapping issues that we investigated. It was a standout in terms of overall inequalities, but also pet rent burden, inequality.
And Houston is a city that not only have they had, they have a long history of kind of racial housing disparities, and the legacies of redlining, all of those kinds of things that have trickled down to current housing issues. But they also are really susceptible to natural disasters, and especially hurricanes and flooding.
And so, putting that all together, we could be looking at some really, really bad issues in Houston, specifically for people of color and low income people with pets.
Arin Greenwood: So it seems like the pet fees are kind of just sort of a hook to talk about a lot of these a lot of these broader issues about how people are extremely vulnerable and how that vulnerability can be increased by having pets that they’re caring for in a world where it’s, it’s not easy to take care of your pets, if you don’t have a lot of resources. Is that right? I mean, even if it weren’t for the pet fees, these other issues would still exist.
Jennifer Applebaum: Yeah, absolutely. But I think we need a broad policy. And the fact is, we need to overhaul a lot of our social policies in the U.S., especially with respect to housing. But this was a way to show that these disparities are even more…They’re exacerbated for people with pets. And so that’s another issue that can compile on to the issues that these vulnerable populations are already facing.
Kevin Horecka: I do think one thing that makes pets sort of a unique issue in this space versus many other issues, which are well studied, or at least well discussed, and the public view, is there’s a really unfortunate cultural conflict over pets as property versus pets as family members.
And we see this really generationally as well. Younger people are much more likely to report their pet as being a member of their family. And so if the policy and if the practice in place treats pets as property, but the vast majority of individuals who have pets don’t, that’s going to create conflict, and it creates conflict in a number of ways.
And it’s particularly going to disproportionately impact people who are already experiencing some form of insecurity or some form of societal sort of punishment or societal harm.
Jennifer Applebaum: Right? Yeah. Pets are legally property. Right. So they’re not they, they, we may think of them as family members and most pet owners in the U.S. do, but they’re certainly not treated that way in the eyes of the law and in terms of social welfare.
Arin Greenwood: Yeah, no, I think that’s a very important insight. It’s a very important insight and wrapped up in there is a lot of judgment against people who don’t evacuate, and who do have a hard time sort of doing the things that people with resources would do without having to think about it, getting veterinary care doing all sorts of things.
You know, we have I think, just as you’re saying, we have this conflict between our pets as property, our pets as family, and and I’m not articulating this very well, but it’s sort of wrapped up in a whole lot of legal and social and and various other issues that are very hard to disentangle and very hard to, to work with which which I guess let’s let’s get to the hopeful part of this.
What are the policy implications of what you found? What do you want to see lawmakers working on? What do you want to see individuals working on? How about animal advocates? How can we make this better?
Kevin Horecka: Yeah, I think there’s a number of things I will say like neither of us are lawyers. So we’re not gonna be able to give
Arin Greenwood: I am, I’m a former lawyer. I can do the law side. You can do the others. (Laughter)
Kevin Horecka: One of our collaborators, though, is much more in tune with that one of the authors on the paper, Lauren. And I was surprised actually to find when she was reviewing the policy side of this, that there are places where additional fees being stacked on top of like rental agreements is just not allowed. And I think that’s a wonderful policy.
I think there’s so many systems in our society right now that people are being nickeled and dimed through rather than baking the cost into whatever the thing is actually just adding on fee after fee after fee that surprises people then. And so that’s, that’s a more radical perspective.
But doing away with sort of ad hoc fees, for particular things like that in housing would, I think, go a long way.
Also, really just acknowledging the rights of people to own pets. And, and the idea that is, you know, it if you’re going to treat pets as property, it’s also weird to say you can’t have that property, but especially when you understand them as family, it’s, it’s really strange, it’d be strange to say, like, you’re not allowed to have children at an apartment complex, like that would be a weird policy to have.
Jennifer Applebaum: Which is totally illegal, you can’t do that at all.
Kevin Horecka: So another maybe more, more robust approach would be to make, at least in certain housing situations, the ability to have a pet, an actual right of the tenant rather than something that is left up to the individual complexes.
Also, I think, on the animal welfare side, shelters and and other organizations that want to advocate for pets and pet owners can provide services like temporary housing, and other other options for people other than giving up their pet or suffering through some some living circumstance, that would be sort of not ideal for whatever they’re doing. There are some programs like that appearing now. You’ll see them especially around things like domestic violence, where someone needs to relocate suddenly, and needs a place for their animal to go.
And maybe the shelter or wherever they’re going is not going to allow their animal. So those temporary services can be really helpful, I think expanding them to even larger groups of people who maybe would be able to take advantage of them, incorporating them into foster programs. So that, you know, it’s as simple as basically having someone keep an eye on your pet for a certain amount of time.
Those sorts of things can help. So all the way from like legislating down through social programs run by nonprofits or or local governments, there’s tons of opportunities to make this problem a lot better for people.
Jennifer Applebaum: Yeah, and I think one of the pushbacks that I’ve heard about policy implications of specifically are papers that if you, say, abolish pet fees, make it so landlords can’t charge pet fees on top of rent, then they’ll just say, ok, no pets altogether.
So I think not just pet fees need to be abolished, or at least strictly regulated, we also just need to abolish pet restrictive housing in general. It’s really clear that it’s causing or contributing to housing insecurity, and also animal relinquishment.
And so I think in terms of the animal welfare, people who are seeing this every day, maybe working in a shelter, dealing with animal relinquishment, and beyond that, we need to kind of speak loudly to to policymakers, and say, we know this is is causing problems and housing we know people are in some cases unhoused because of this issue, or it’s at least contributed to potentially evictions and other really bad housing issues.
I think engaging policymakers is a really good way to potentially go about this. Broader than that, we need more affordable housing in the U.S. generally. But that’s kind of beyond the scope of what animal welfare people necessarily can do. But just advocating for those policies in general, supporting, voting for, for government officials who will support those types of policies is something that can be done at the individual level, for sure.
Kevin Horecka: There are, there’s definitely going to be some negotiation, and caveats that need to happen with this. Like, it was pointed out by one of my research collaborators, that as an example, totally abolishing any restrictions on pets would potentially result in health consequences for people with really severe pet allergies or things like that.
So there’s going to be a balance here of ensuring that the various stakeholders who are involved in here people who don’t have pets, people who are afraid of pets, you know, if someone’s had a really severe bite incidents in their life, and now gets post traumatic stress when they’re around dogs, we need to be sensitive to their housing situation as well.
And then also being at least somewhat accommodating for landlords and the idea that there’s, they’re going to have a stake in these decisions as well. Right now, everything is very much in their favor. And so we need to swing much farther towards the consumer side.
But it’s going to be, I think, a full conversation to figure out what exactly is the right implementation for all of these things.
Arin Greenwood: Right. But at the bottom line, I mean, the thing that seems unavoidable is we need more affordable housing, and more affordable pet friendly housing. And that’s sort of at the root of many of these problems with more liberal housing and more affordable pet friendly housing, we’d have fewer of these problems.
Kevin Horecka: And to do away with some of the more abusive practices like pet fees and pet rent.
Arin Greenwood: Right. Right. No, that’s really important. So what are you going to be looking into next? What are you all researching now that you’ve got this paper under your belt?
Jennifer Applebaum: Well, Kevin, and I are starting to get off the ground. We’re going to look at this on the national level. So I’m curious about how this is all playing out, in like comparisons across states, and then just more generally, more broadly across the U.S. And national analysis has never been done like this. And so I’m excited to kind of look at trends in different spatial relationships and see, you know, if we find anything surprising.
Of course, we would probably expect that more progressive, more blue areas are going to be better, but we don’t necessarily know because those tend to be cities that are pretty expensive in a lot of cases. And so, I think we might find some really interesting patterns.
Kevin Horecka: Yeah, and I think we’d also like to really take a closer look at housing like subsidized housing, where we know that it’s inherently a more vulnerable population and, and lower income, and where there’s also already sort of a vested government stake in the housing situation.
You know, if I think it’s easier, maybe, or I suspect it will be easier to get policymakers to be more engaged in this problem, if they see that it’s actually the money they’re allocating to particular public programs, that is going to these more abusive policies like pet fees and pet rent. And if they realize that it’s their constituents and their taxes that are going towards this problem and feeding the landlords at the expense of the people they’re trying to help, that could potentially motivate a lot of policy change in and of itself.
Arin Greenwood: Are you going to be looking to compare communities where they’ve abolished pet fees with communities where they haven’t and see what’s happened in those in those different types of places?
Kevin Horecka: I think we’d like to go there, there aren’t nearly as many comparison groups of places where the policy is exactly what we would love to see. In fact, I doubt there’s, there’s anywhere.
I haven’t dove deeply enough into all the policy implications across the country. But I doubt there’s anywhere that has all the things we’re recommending, there are definitely some that have maybe, you know, 70-80 percent.
And so that is something I think we’d like to look at amongst the ones that are a little more progressive on these issues. Are these problems actually better? Are the interventions we’re recommending already working in some places?
Arin Greenwood: Yeah, I’ll be very curious to see what you find out. Seems like a great thing to be studying. They are very useful. Yeah. Oh, what else should I know? What else haven’t I asked you about?
Kevin Horecka: I think we covered the highlights. I think another thing that it would be useful to dig into is some of the counter arguments that are in this space. You know, we talked earlier about the idea that landlords as a counter argument are going to immediately say, oh, well, these fees are to make up for the damage that animals do on our property or these fees are to pay for animal related services that we know our tenants want, like having poop bags, or something like that, or having a small dog park.
So far, as far as I’ve seen, no one’s actually examined whether or not any of those things actually are pertinent to this question. And so digging into some of those, some of the secondary conversations from the perspectives of some of the other people involved in the system, like landlords, even local animal services organizations, talking about if there are, say more bites, in particular areas, more bite incidents, which is an area of major public concern, a lot of those points need to be studied drastically more to get a complete picture of this system.
I don’t think any of them are strong enough counter arguments to not immediately start pushing for change on all of these things, but they are things we should understand.
Arin Greenwood: Yeah, that’ll be interesting to see what you find out. Some of that is addressed in the HABRI-Michelson Found Animals housing report. But I’d be curious what you find looking into the data as well. Yeah, it seems so interesting. One more thing. You focused on Texas? Why Texas? And how is Texas different from other places?
Jennifer Applebaum: Kevin, you want to take? Go ahead.
Kevin Horecka: A couple of the reasons are purely practical. It is the area that our policy expert Lauren is most familiar with. So we had a really good and thorough understanding of the current policy situation and current housing situations in Texas. And so starting with sort of a known was really important and accelerative.
Texas is also a state with a lot of diversity in terms of how its cities are the demographics of its cities. You know, Houston is the most diverse city in the country. But then you got cities like Lubbock that are majority white. And so being able to look at that as well, we knew there’d be lots of diversity. There’s lots of geographic diversity as well between rural and city that we were like smaller cities versus some of the largest cities in the country.
We do suspect Texas is special in certain ways. We always say, when I’m looking at geographic stuff, California, Texas, and Florida are always going to be weird in some way.
Arin Greenwood: (laughs) We pride ourselves on that.
Kevin Horecka: (laughs) Yeah. And that’s going to be something that we’ll have to look at in the overall nationwide analysis. But I think the major motivator was to start with a known quantity, where we know there’s sufficient variability that we’re going to be able to ask our questions, we potentially could have tried to start bigger. But it’s, it’s much easier to have an anchor point with these sorts of questions, where you can talk much more specifically about cities like Houston, or Lubbock, or even Austin, and try to try to dig into the specific issues they’re having before you go cast a really wide net and understand the whole country.
Arin Greenwood: And did you find variation between communities in Texas? Or did you find sort of what, you know, not so much variation?
Kevin Horecka: Oh, yeah, there was huge, huge variation. And that’s one of the things we highlight in the paper is specifically if you look at within city, variability in prices, you can kind of like, compare neighborhoods, basically, that are near each other and look for situations where there’s a massive difference in the pet fee burden, even though they’re only about a mile apart.
And you find those situations a lot in, in particular Austin, in Lubbock, and in Houston, where that sort of it can be related to gentrification. So if you’ve got neighborhoods that are being heavily gentrified, that’s potentially more likely to happen.
And then it’s also just cities that inherently have a lot of income inequality already. And as we were talking about earlier, that can be based on already sort of historical redlining and other things that have created that or it can just be how the city is currently evolving and the policies that that city is creating.
Arin Greenwood: Well, this is great. I really enjoyed speaking with you, I found your paper, not the math part so much, but the rest of it to be tremendously helpful. And I’m glad that you can explain the math part to me. Where can people find more of your work? Should they follow you on Twitter? Where should they look for you?
Jennifer Applebaum: Yeah, I’m @JWApplebaum on Twitter. That’s probably the best place to find me.
Kevin Horecka: I mean, I’m the only Kevin Horecka on the internet. And so if you set up a Google alert for my name, you’ll get whatever I do.
Arin Greenwood: Great. Well, thank you very much.
Jennifer Applebaum: Thank you. It was really great.
Kevin Horecka: Thank you so much.
*The audio from this piece was transcribed using a transcription service. Please excuse any typos or incorrect patterns of speech.
