by Knut Dorker in Housing
Posted on December 8, 2009 at 10:45 am
Last Modified on December 16, 2009 at 11:37 pm
loading…
House Bill No. 1747 at the State Legislature plans to give “housing rights” to alleged victims of domestic violence, would endanger the neighboring tenants and place huge burdens on small landlords. The bill would block eviction, failure of renewal of any self-claimed victim of domestic violence, stop rent increases, allow non-victims to easily abuse the law, and worst of all, deprive landlords of providing safe and peaceful environments to other tenants.
It is both in interest of landlords and tenants to have safe housing conditions. Calm tenants that pay rent on time are a landlord’s dream, while tenants also prefer to live in ruckus-free and safe homes. Although domestic violence is a widespread plague and victims of it deserve protection from law enforcement and from other sources, endangering other tenants and causing bankruptcy for small-time landlords is not the answer of this problem.
Today, if there is a situation where one of the tenants is constantly engaged in vocal of physical fights or is followed by suspicions characters that visit the premises, the tenants would complain to the landlord and that landlord would take action, or at least not renew the lease. If bill 1747 passes, the landlord will not be able to ask the problematic tenants to leave, increase their lease, or fail to renew their lease – thus effectively creating rent control for problematic tenants.
Now put yourself in shoes of a tenant who lives next to a couple that has screaming fights every night, throws objects or worse. You tell the landlord, who technically has to provide safe and peaceful residence for you, but the landlord’s hands are tied. If they fighting couple will not move out, you probably will, and so will every tenant in that building as long as the problem persists. If that happens the landlord won’t be able to eventually pay the mortgage and will go in foreclosure. HOW DOES THAT HELP ANYBODY?
This example is a mellow one and there are much worse scenarios that happen when aggressive tenants occupy or visit the building.
So if you believe that you as a landlord should have the right to protect the tenants, and you as a tenant should have the right to live in a peaceful and safe environment please call, email, or write the Chairs of the Housing Committee and your own state senator and representative and urge them to vote against the bill.
Senator Susan Tucker
Chair, Housing Committee
State House, Room 424
Boston, MA 02133
617-722-1612
Susan.Tucker@state.ma.us
Kevin Honan
Chair, Housing Committee
State House, Room 38
Boston, MA 02133
617-722-2470
Rep.KevinHonan@hou.state.ma.us
loading…
I don’t follow your logic because the scenario you depict would exist if there was no place for a victim to go to get out of a screamingly bad relationship. Giving victims a safe place to go would help break up the fighting couple, not keep them together to bother neighbors. Perhaps there should be some recourse for landlords if they are saddled with bad tenants, but why do you assume that victims of domestic violence will be bad tenants?
loading...
My understanding of this bill is that it will allow the eviction of a perpetrator of violence, while protecting the victim of violence. The whole family would not need to be displaced because of one family member who is abusive and disruptive. Right now, a whole family would become homeless because of the actions of the abuser.
loading...
Knut, you claim the following:
“The bill would
1.block eviction,
2.failure of renewal of any self-claimed victim of domestic violence,
3.stop rent increases,
4.allow non-victims to easily abuse the law, and worst of all,
5.deprive landlords of providing safe and peaceful environments to other tenants.”
HOWEVER, if you read the bill (Senate Version is at:http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/186/st00/st00627.htm ) your claims are not confirmed:
1. This bill does not prohibit adverse housing decisions based upon other lawful factors within the owner’s knowledge;
2. The tenant must provide verification that they are a victim of domestic violence as provided by Massachusetts General Laws section 1 of chapter 209A OR
. . . rape as provided by M.G.L. section 22, 22A, 23, 24 or 24B of chapter 265 or section 2, 3 or 17 of chapter 272 OR
. . . sexual assault as provided by M.G.L. section 13B, 13F, or 13H of chapter 265 or section 35A of chapter 272 OR
. . . stalking as provided by M.G.L. section 43 of chapter 265;
3. same as #1- there is a prohibition against discrimination on the basis of the above- NOT a prohibition against the landlord conducting lawful and ordinary business;
4. there is no language in this bill pertaining to “non-victims;” and
5. again, as in 1. and 3.- in NO WAY does this bill deprive owners/landlords of performing their responsibilities to ensure safe and decent housing for all tenants.
loading...
Linda,
I must say that I don’t follow your logic either. Why would a landlord want to evict a good tenant that pays on time, even if he/she were a victim of domestic violence. Evictions are landlord’s biggest nightmare and are last resort solution.
I’m using a little bit of foresight and imagine a probable scenario where the violence occurs often, so as to becoming a threat to neighbors and landlords themselves, and then there is noway out for a landlord.
Mregan,
your understanding of the bill is wrong. All that needs to happen to be offered this protection is:
1. The tenant has a valid order for protection under chapter 209A
2. The tenant has to notify a law enforcement officer
3. The tenant has consulted with a qualified third party and reported the domestic violence.
This means that there is no burden of proof, no court case, nothing. All it takes is notification and there is nothing in the bill that states that both parties can’t get this protection.
Now, question for you. Let’s say you live in a building, and you’ve heard a couple next door fight. This is 3rd time. You call the cops, they arrive and investigate. One party says “He hit me”, the other party says “He hit me”. They both notified the police officer at this point and got a written report. The fights continue. You turn to the landlord – at this points her hands are tied, there is no recourse she can take. What do you do? Do you continue to live there, despite fights several times a week? Or do you leave?
loading...
eila,
I’ve read the bill. Maybe you just don’t understand it.
The verification you’re talking about is as little as notifying a police officer.
http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/house/186/ht01pdf/ht01747.pdf
In addition the bill does not say that both parties cannot obtain this verification. And it does provide any recourse if the abuser only is not a resident and visits and the victim let’s them in voluntarily (resulting in further fights and abuse).
loading...
Knut, I read the bill and agree with Eila that its language does not support your claims. I believe you are misunderstanding the first sentence of Section 4(a), which states:
So, the owner may take an adverse action without violating this bill as long as that action is not “based on the tenant or occupant’s or applicant’s or a member of his or her household’s status…”.
Basically, this bill does three things:
1. Protect tenants from housing discrimination based on their status as a victim of sexual abuse.
2. Grants victims of sexual abuse rights to end a tenancy and recoup pre-paid monies.
3. Grants such tenants the rights to have their exterior locks changed.
In your example, the landlord could still call the police if a fighting couple is making too much noise. I would think that depending on the language of the rental agreement, excessive noise complaints might constitute a legitimate reason to seek eviction.
loading...
Barry,
I hate this because you’re most often right than wrong, but i think you failed to read that whole paragraph as a whole – and this is a crucial paragraph to the whole Bill.
If you read further, after the ‘or’ this is what the bill says
A landlord may not terminate a tenancy […] or based upon actions or failure to
act that resulted from domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking directed at the tenant’s or a
member of his or her household’s status as a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault or
stalking.
I don’t know about you, but this means to me that a landlord cannot take any action based on “actions that resulted from domestic violence”. I would say that screaming, throwing of objects, physical damage to property are easily actions resulting from domestic violence. And since these are actions resulting from domestic violence, landlord is powerless against such tenant (with the exception of calling the cops)
loading...
Knut, yes I agree that that passage would seem to offer protection against discrimination based on the actions related to or resulting from domestic violence, such as verbal fights. This fits well within the spirit of the bill.
In this specific type of case, I doubt that noisy fights would continue unabated, especially if the landlord and/or other tenants repeatedly call the police. Probably a court-ordered restraining order would eventually calm the situation down.
I fundamentally disagree with your premise: that it would be in a landlord’s interest to evict any tenant belonging to one of the protected categories (victim of rape, sexual assualt, domestic violence, stalking, etc…). Even when a situation arises, such as a noisy domestic fight, that creates temporary problems for the landlord and other tenants, it would be cruel to allow the landlord to evict the tenant who would already be under much stress.
Since the bill only prohibits discrimination based on status or actions (or lack thereof), and thus still allows adverse actions for other reasons, your basic argument remains unfounded.
I agree with Dave that if you can’t handle the possibility of having tenants involved in a domestic fight, then don’t become a landlord in the first place.
If you don’t agree that tenants should have these basic rights, then what alternative protection would you offer to someone in one of the defined categories?
loading...
Barry, in answer to
1. “…Even when a situation arises, such as a noisy domestic fight, that creates temporary problems for the landlord and other tenants, it would be cruel to allow the landlord to evict the tenant who would already be under much stress. and “…I agree with Dave that if you can’t handle the possibility of having tenants involved in a domestic fight, then don’t become a landlord in the first place…” – Why should landlords have to tolerate, be burdened with, get involved in and have their quality of life ruined by having tenant’s whose lifes are a mess?
What you and Dave are missing here is that many landlords here live one floor above some of our tenants. Why should they have to deal with the police coming and the disfunction of a screwed up relationship? Where’s our protection?
loading...
Knut is correct and what some progressive folks haven’t figured out is that there are some inherently rotten people in this world. And “professional” tenants fall into this category. These are the layabouts that know this is an extremely tenant friendly state already and they bounce from rental to rental living rent free for months. This law would cripple a landlord’s ability to control his/her own property. I’ve had bad tentants – nothing worse. It’s frustrating and if/when you go and throw their stuff on the sidewalk the law arrests you – the landlord.
Also; picture this scenario – Peggy-Sue tells her boyfriend (Manuel) to give her a cuff across the head. She then calls the cops – and reports the made-up incident. She doesn’t file the 209A as that may impact other grifts they’re working, but they have the police report and now the rent will never go up, they don’t have to pay rent, they can damage the property – and they live there. Rent free. If you folks don’t think this will happen then you didn’t grow up here and you live in some bubble. It will happen — I know lots of people who will pull that scam.
On a separate, but somewhat related topic; please talk to your house state level representative to support H 2259 “An Act Relative to Civil Rights and Public Safety”.
In 1998, Massachusetts legislators passed the toughest gun control laws in the country. However since the law was passed, firearm-related crime has increased dramatically. Firearm-related deaths have increased by 68% and firearm-related assault injuries have increased by 72%. Emergency room visits as a result of firearm-related assaults have surged by an incredible 222%. Predictably, the number of peaceable, law-abiding citizens that call Massachusetts home has plummeted.
In view of this, the answer clearly isn’t enacting more laws to hamstring the peaceable gun owners of Massachusetts. Our legislative efforts ought to be focused on enacting laws that protect the citizens’ right to own firearms and punish violent and dangerous criminal offenders.
Call your representatives to support H 2259 “An Act Relative to Civil Rights and Public Safety”.
loading...
This article reads like one big blame-the-victim rant. Basically, you’ve lumped the victims of abuse in with the perpetrators of abuse under the label “problematic tenants.” And while you say at one point the victims deserve some protection, you obviously don’t feel that protection should come in your neighborhood or city. Nah, send these victims of abuse somewhere else. They’re too “problematic” for you to care. Nice.
loading...
After reading this blog post, I’m going to have to write the Rep and Senator letting them know I support this bill.
This blog post reads like a sensationalist blame the victim rant, and makes leaps in logic that would make anyone NBA worthy. This state already offers so few tenant protections compared to my old home of SF, anything that moves towards giving tenants a voice is a much needed step.
Shame on the writer for the Fox News worthy fear mongering and poor logic.
loading...
You must be a fan of Glen Beck as he’s approach to topics that force him to think outside of the box are “I don’t like it and it’s so out of my comfort zone therefore I’m gonna do exactly the opposite.”
loading...
Not familiar with Glen Beck. However, when I see someone that extolls the virtues of “victimizing the victim” logic, I’ll actively go against it.
Another reason though, is to strengthen the tenant laws. I’ve never lived in a place that had so few protections for tenants.
loading...
XUMI – MA is 50 / 51 in gun deaths per capita. Only Hawaii is lower. MA is doing something right!
Thanks for the heads up, though, I’ll let everyone know to read up on and call their representatives to reject H2259. (Without your help, I’d not have known to mobilize against it!)
loading...
Sure some bad tenants exist, but the vast majority are good tenants. I say this from my experience working with tenants over the past 12 years. So protecting victims of violence (much more common than bad tenants in my experience) trumps protecting landlords from the occasional bad tenant, IMHO.
loading...
I think you’re right, but why would a landlord ever want to evict a good tenant even if he/she were a victim of domestic violence.
In my experience, the safety of landlord and other tenants or any individual is equally important, and a person/persons should not be allowed to caused trouble without any ramifications because they slapped each other – which is basically what this bill does, it gives a carte blanche to anyone who claimed that they are a victim.
loading...
Knut, the bill does not give “a carte blanche to anyone who claimed that they are a victim”. It only prevents landlords from using a protected status as the reason for an adverse housing decision. But the bill would not preclude any other valid reason from being used against a tenant.
loading...
In my understanding of this bill, trouble makers endangering the health and safety of tenants and the landlord would still be able to be evicted.
But the victims of domestic violence-related trouble would not be evicted along with the perpetrator of the violence.
loading...
If she hit him 3 times and he hit her once, who is the victim? And in this case should they both be entitled protection against eviction?
loading...
Both people involved in the dispute could conceivably receive protection under this bill from eviction solely on the basis of their status as victims of domestic violence. If the dispute involved excessive noise, then the landlord or another tenant could call the police to deal with it.
loading...
Brian, what part of “since the gun laws were enacted in MA – Firearm-related deaths have increased by 68% and firearm-related assault injuries have increased by 72%. Emergency room visits as a result of firearm-related assaults have surged by an incredible 222%..” confused you? Vermont has NO gun laws. I can carry a SIG P239 without license in VT– and they’re near the bottom as well. What’s your point? MA has always been low per capita, but since the gun laws came in – our crime level has increased.
Dave/mregan, the point is that there are a lot of deadbeat tenant out there that will take advantage of the loophole in this well-intentioned, but mis-guided law. You watch the unintended consequences of this law. No one will rent to any section 8 single mothers who *may* be more liable to have abusive boyfriends. But you lib trust funders will be o.k/ as I’ll rent to you recyclers/composters/greenies/living-the-bohemian-dream-in-the-ville’ers any day (I love you guys!)…. I guess maybe that is the intention all along. You guys will be fine. Just the poor and disadvantaged will get thrown under the bus here.
loading...
XUMI – No confusion, sorry.
Look at facts:
Vermont is #34 – 9.6 gun deaths per 100,000. (9.1 in 1996, 5 % increase))
MA is #50 – 3.1 gun deaths per 100,000. (3.9 in 1996, 25 % decrease)
If you feel safer in VT with your gun at your side, then that is fine, but it is only an illusion. MA is getting safer over the past 13 years while VT is getting less safe.
loading...
Funny, anyone who disagrees with you must be a trust fundie… you sound like me when I’m walking through Harvard Square.
Your faux concern about the Section 8 renters, well, that’s easily fixed by enacting, enforcing, or bolstering anti-discrimination in housing laws. Like I said, the laws here supporting renters are rather weak, anything that strengthens them is good. I understand your bias though, you don’t want “no gubbmint” telling you who you can,cannot rent to, and how you rent to them. My answer to that: Don’t rent.
Also, your implication that Section 8 recipient single mothers are more likely to be abused sounds bigoted, unless you have research to back your point, which I’d like to see. Back when I was a victim’s advocate in CA our record keeping told a different story. Then again, the west coast is different.
loading...
Dave, be careful what you wish for.. soon enough many landlords won’t want the headache of renting if they only have all the liability and no control of their properties. Then who wins? Lots of units come off the available market. Let me guess.. in your world the city should force people to rent their properties. Am I right?
I think it’s great that you were a victim’s advocate in SF. I do, I really do, but now you get to live in the real world and the reality is that tenants have the right to pay rent for their housing. They don’t have the right to be in the unit (they don’t own) forever and rent-free by any mandate from the city/state or government. I don’t care how abused they are.
Speaking of which the 209A statue is one of the most abused procedures during divorce. So think about how many people would have hightened rights by using this tactic. Dave, you sound like a decent guy… you just need to give up daddy’s trust fund now and donate that to the needy. Charity makes the heart strong.
loading...
Xumi, careful now.
Only thing I have left from daddy is the flag the army put on his coffin. Is that what you call a trust fund? I think I may have paid a whole lot in, for very little benefit if you understand my meaning.
Also, you assume too much, I never said I was a victim’s advocate in SF, CA is slightly bigger than a single city. Why is it that when someone disagrees with you, it must be because they are in a position of economic safety? While, granted, many people find causes after being nicely protected in a 401k, and a home of their own… some of us actually have to earn what we have, and don’t mind sharing it. It’s called being “stand up”.
In my world, since you seem so interested, people have rights based on their humanity, and not on their relative economic strength. People do the right thing, and have no problem caring about how their neighbors are doing, because they understand that when their neighbors are struggling, the neighborhood is struggling. (It’s part of something called “community”, oft given lip service, but seldom embraced.)
It’s not unheard of for people to act ethically, but it seems that laws forcing it are needed here, as well as enforcement. (I maintain driving here would be much nicer if the PD learned how to enforce the rules of the road.)
I understand your desire to discredit people that see differently than you as affluent, idiots, or hippy/yuppies, it’s a common well worn strategy. Is that a good way to have a discussion? It shows you don’t respect those you debate with. So then, other than self flagellation, what’s the point?
Back to my question, do you have a citable source to back your allegations that Section 8 single mothers are a danger to landlords and peace everywhere?
loading...
Dave, me too on the flag draped coffin. Everyone in my family served. It’s tradition. Walk outside SHS and you will see the family name.
ok… back to the point of this article…what is ethical about penalizing (via misguided laws) landlords to assuage some guilt you may have? And who decides what is ethical and how one needs to give to be deemed ethical? You and your progressive friends or as you’re now asking – the state or city by making laws for people to act ethically (or at least your twisted version of ethics).
I give more than most and I do it voluntarily via my church and to the different charities around the city. I have no guilt that I need to get over that the city needs to enact laws for me. If you want to be ethical then act ethically voluntarily.
And please point out where I alleged that ”…that Section 8 single mothers are a danger to landlords and peace everywhere..”.
loading...
Brian, please prove this statement <"… MA is getting safer over the past 13 years while VT is getting less safe…".
Especially in regards to: since the gun laws were enacted in MA – Firearm-related deaths have increased by 68% and firearm-related assault injuries have increased by 72%. Emergency room visits as a result of firearm-related assaults have surged by an incredible 222%..”
Thank you
loading...
Just do a search. Search for gun deaths in 1996, and then in 2009. Tabulate the data, but I already did that for you.
We are off topic. Lets leave this for another blog.
loading...
I don’t have a trust fund,and no one in my family has one either. I’m a working class person.
Domestic violence is not more prevalent among low income people, it’s just easier to hide if you own your own home. Those with more resources may be easily able to relocate when they are victims of domestic violence. This bill would allow more low income victims of violence to remain in their rental units.
loading...
mregan, ok… I get it now… just don’t rent to low-income folks to begin with!!! That way you avoid any of these issues since the low-income folks are the ones who are more liable to be “stuck” in a unit anyway! DOH!!!! Thanks. Check! That alleviates this issue. I wonder if other landlords will figure that out too? Ya think they will. I do.
The right solution it to stop this travesty of a bill from ever being passed. It’s creating problems where none exist.
loading...
“No one will rent to any section 8 single mothers who *may* be more liable to have abusive boyfriends.”
Cite it, or it’s bs.
Why must all acts to protect others right to pursue happiness be based on guilt? Landlords have rights as well, and those rights are exceedingly well protected in MA, to the point that there is no parity. (Lack of enforcement is institutionalized protection.) A landlord decides to do business, and businesses have to act in certain ways to ensure that customers are properly served, that’s all these laws are, in some places it’s called “consumer protection”.
Either way, some died to give us the right to babble on the internet about we think is right and wrong, you see it your way, I see it mine. Who will actually take the step of penning a letter or making a phone call? (I would think it would be the one that is more economically advantaged, as they don’t have to worry as much about where the next paycheck is coming from, and if ends are meeting or not. Best way to prevent political change, btw is to remove the middle class, hard to cause a stir when you live hand to mouth.)
loading...
Cited (see post above): You watch the unintended consequences of this law. No one will rent to any section 8 single mothers who *may* be more liable to have abusive boyfriends. But you lib trust funders will be o.k/ as I’ll rent to you recyclers/composters/greenies/living-the-bohemian-dream-in-the-ville’ers any day (I love you guys!) and I stand by it.
Dave, you want to help the needy then volunteer at a food bank…. don’t ask that the state enact mis-guided laws that punish innocent property owners.
Have a Merry Christmas…. enjoy the evening…. your latte must be getting cold.
loading...
I think that many have a basic misunderstanding about domestic violence here. I’ve been studying it for years and have two books and over 25 articles published about domestic violence, and have taught it to criminal justice students.
Rarely is it the case that there is a distinct perpetrator and victim in a domestic violence situation. Oftentimes, both parties are participating in the violence and abuse, and although women are more likely to get restraining orders than men, there are many men who certainly need them as well. Therefore, a “victim” (who is usually a she in the spirit of these laws) is not really a “victim” in the purest sense, and is often participating in violent and disruptive behavior herself. She also often lets her partner back into the house, even in the presence of a restraining order. Restraining orders have been shown to be basically ineffective in “calming the situation down”, as one person on this site put it. One reason is because the person (usually woman) who files it, lets and invites the other person to violate it. And, in fact, it often takes years and many tries for someone who is involved in very violent relationships to leave and stay away. Therefore, the landlord may have his/her hands tied. If such a law is passed, it needs to protect the “victim”, but also make sure that the “perpetrator” stays away. If not, that can put other tenants in danger and lead to a landlord’s financial demise. Of course, it may be difficult to ascertain who the victim and perpetrator are to start with.
loading...
Denise, thank you for your light on the subject, and I’m interested in the titles of your books!
As a person who’s experienced dv within family and friends, I have seen exactly what you say. Locks changed, only to subsequently have the key given to the abuser; claims of “it’s over”, only to later be told things are being “worked out”, the perpetrator avoiding contact with other tenants, restraining orders filed but no further action. It’s frustrating, but at some point, you can do nothing to protect the victims because they won’t protect themselves. The reality is much different from the ideals that folks who haven’t been around the real thing imagine. There are resources, shelters, agencies out there that offer services for folks who are ready to be out of the situation for good. But it often takes a long time for a victim to choose to leave the situation for good.
loading...
Denise,
Thank you for your objective input on this matter. Your explanation clearly illustrates the problem with this legislation. It’s not the changing of the locks, or allowing the victim to vacate the premises without further financial obligation that landlords have a problem with. These are protections that a victim should have. In fact these are protections that indirectly benefit the neighboring tenants as well
The biggest issue with this bill and the reason I have a problem with it (the reason for my post) is that you describe – the victim continually engaging with the abuser causing nuisance and property damage at best, and being a danger to tenants and landlord at worst.
loading...
Lauren, exactly “…It’s frustrating, but at some point, you can do nothing to protect the victims because they won’t protect themselves. The reality is much different from the ideals that folks who haven’t been around the real thing imagine…”. The problem we have is that some of these trust fund progressives (see above for examples) think (whilst they’re dancing around in a tutu in their living rooms) that dragging poor landlords into a dometic violence issue that somehow that will cure the it. Amazing stupid and elitst thinking.
I know these are the same dunderheads that voted for “hope and change” and “yes we can” so there isn’t a lot of hope that they’ll ever get it. Domestic violence is a serious issue – dragging more people into it will just create a bigger issue and more violence. I can picture some landlords getting so frustrated with an abusive, rent-free, can’t-get-rid-off-him/her tenant that they’ll take matters into their own hands. Then who wins?
Oy Vey.
loading...
I really think it’s counterproductive to this otherwise very interesting discussion to lace your comments with insults. How do you presume to know the economic status of the other participants in this blog? Never mind. I don’t want to know. I’d rather you just weren’t so cranky and more intelligently critical Knut and Xumi. I lived with a couple who had a violent dispute many years ago. I have to admit I felt abused by the situation. As a landlord now I screen tenants by insisting on references and having a personal interview with each applicant. Still, one time I had to fake that a relative was moving in to get some noisy tenants out. It can be a very unsavory business to be in. I hope I’d behave in the most compassionate way possible toward tenants who were suffering from abusive situations, and I do think there needs to be laws to protect people under those circumstances. As a landlord, though, I wonder if it’s within my rights to require a certain code of behavior on my property? Shall I put it in the contract? We have a tenant-at-will deal now.
loading...
Linda,
Your question/concern at the end of your post is something that I tried to address in my post and comments throughout this discussion.
And the answer is this: NO.
Under the currently proposed bill, if the behavior of your tenants is loud, destructive in aggressive as a result of domestic violence, you DO NOT have a right to evict, fail to renew, or raise rant, even if it’s in your contract.
This is what the bill says
A landlord may not terminate a tenancy […] based upon actions [or failure to
act] that resulted from domestic violence, (fights are typically a result of domestic violence)
So if your at will tenant starts having fights with her boyfriend/husband, and files report with the police (aka receives protection under this bill), you cannot get rid of the tenant by eviction, you cannot not renew his/her lease (tenant at will leases renew every month) and you cannot raise their rent. So they can keep having fights and throwing things and there is nothing you can do.
loading...
And Linda, you made our point exactly. We all screen tenants now, but you have to know that with all the laws being passed to limit a landlord’s options that a variety of folks (low-income, single-moms, etc) won’t be getting rented to. The only people anyone will rent to now are trust-fund progressvies. Why? Because if they bust up the house I’ll sue their daddy’s.
loading...