In a recent city council meeting it was proposed that a rule go into effect that would hold landlords responsible for tenants' bad behavior, as in excessive noise and partying.
Apparently, there has been a chronic problem with a few college students in a few houses close to the university. I can understand why the city council would want to deal with that problem, but why go after the landlords? If the police can't deal with it, wouldn't it make more sense to go after the university, requesting that any students with a certain number of community complaints be expelled?
I don't get it. What do other communities do about this problem?
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would solve that problem easily if I were the landlord - you get more than two police complaints you're out and you forfeit your deposits. I'd write it in to the lease.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You'd have to word that one very carefully, to make sure it applied only to complaints that turned out to be valid. If clauses like these were known, it could be very easy for someone to anonymously call in phony noise or party complaints that the police would have to investigate nonetheless. Two of those and someone who did nothing wrong could be out on their ear.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, the landlords in that area depend on student leases. So once fall session starts the demand drops. If you had to kick out a couple of partiers, you may end up without tenants for a few months, which might not be a big deal for some landlords, but is certainly a big deal for others.
(I, btw, am a landlord, but not in that area. We rent out a house we own just north of Seattle. Our tenants have been there for years, though, so it's not like it's a rough gig.)
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, that's why I sold my old house instead of renting - being a landlord is too much work.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no reason for the landlords to be responsible for tenant's behavior. The local townspeople are just looking for the easiest and most available person to blame.
College students are moving targets.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Agreed. I took a bath on a condo in Anchorage to avoid being a landlord. In hindsight, I should have stuck it out....the housing market got better just a few years after I sold. Oh well.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: wouldn't it make more sense to go after the university, requesting that any students with a certain number of community complaints be expelled?
I don't agree with that one at all. What if the renter wasn't liked in his area, but did not cause discomfort to anybody? People could complain unjustly can get him kicked out of school. That's hardly fair.
That makes as much sense as holding the landlord responsible for the renter's disturbances. Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I was a renter, I knew that too much disturbance would lead to my eviction or my lease not being renewed. When I was in grad school, the landlord did approach me on occasions when neighbors had complained about my music. It seems pretty fair to me to hold the landlord responsible, because, unlike anybody else, the landlord can attempt to pass the penalties on to the true cause of the problem. And yes, I know that it can be hard to enforce as a landlord. Both my aunt and my father lost money attempting to rent houses after they had moved out of them. It's a heck of a hard proposition to turn a profit on. But that's life. Some people still manage to make money on the deal.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to agree that it is ridiculous to hold the landlord responsible for what their tenants do. It's not their job and they didn't have any part in encouraging the behavior, so why bring them into it? Why force them to do the police', the deputized representatives of the community, job? Isn't that what police are for? Aren't they supposed to enforce the laws?
Why make the landlord's job harder than it has to be?
A law like this sets a horrible precedent. If landlords are responsible for what their tenants do, regardless if whether or not they had a role in the 'crime', then if one of their tenants commits any crime on the landlord's property, the landlord can be held responsible for it, as well, can't they?
This law is outrageous as it forces landlords to work for the state against their will. It forces them into a role that goes beyond what I believe their 'civic duty' entails.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
jeniwren, you didn't say if you would've ended up being an absentee landlord on the place in Anchorage. If so, I humbly submit that you are much better off having unloaded the place, even at a loss. I did the other route, lost the house, it was destroyed and it ruined my credit for years.
My tenant turned from a $60K/yr mid-level executive with Time Warner to a homeless person -- literally. It was horrible. And i was 1200 miles away unable to afford to do anything about it.
Biggest mistake of my life, so far, was trying to get my money out of that house by renting it for a "few years."
And I see no reason at all and no sense in holding landlords "responsible" for tenant's bad behavior. If someone is breaking the law, arrest them! If they aren't, then there's nothing to "enforce." The police have a job to do and if someone is disturbing the peace, they should either immediately stop or go to jail for a couple of hours to think things over.
posted
Well, wait . . . first of all, if a tenant commits an actual crime, then clearly it's a different situation. A landlord is not responsible for this. But as a homeowner, if you make too much noise, you are not generally looking at jail time. You are looking at some sort of a fine.
So why not fine the students instead of the owner? Well, because if a homeowneer doesn't pay his or her fine, you can put a lien on the house. Can't do that to a college student.
When I was a renter, I had an expectation that the landlord would protect my right to a peaceful and pleasant place to live by enforcing rules on the whole complex. Frankly, it's the norm. Most apartments have rules about what you can do and when, and how much noise you can make. Heck, doing so protects his or her own investment, because property values fall if frequent disturbances make a place too unpleasant to live in.
-o-
I see where you are coming from, but frankly, going after the university seems far more ludicrous to me.
quote: So why not fine the students instead of the owner? Well, because if a homeowneer doesn't pay his or her fine, you can put a lien on the house. Can't do that to a college student.
So, college students will pay the fine for the same reason they pay any other fine imposed by the state. Just because there's an extra screw you can put to a landlord to force them to change their behavior doesn't mean they are responsible for the behavior of their renters.
As for landlords enforcing peace and quiet on their property, that is their choice to do so and I guess my experience has been different than yours. I have had landlords tell me that there's nothing they can do and point me in the direction of the police. I have never heard of a landlord being held responsible for the noise their tenants create. Again, YMMV.
The principle should be that if you break the law, only you should pay the penalty. It's unfair to ask an innocent to either enforce the law or suffer a penalty for the misbehavior of someone else.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unusually noisy tenants give other tenants the right to break their lease, because it is the responsibility of the landlord to provide hospitable living conditions. Therefore, I do talk to the landlord and expect him to subdue the wayward tenant (after trying to pacify the noisy neighbor myself of course). If the landlord does nothing, I give the old "either he moves or I do" speech. Since noisy tenants are usually bad tenants in other ways, that generally does the trick. That is really the only reasonable recourse you have. Holding the landlord directly responsible is ridiculous.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
right now in Athens they are trying to enforce a rental registration act that gives the city/county (Athens-Clarke County are one collective government) the right to search your house at any time, and are restricting so only 2 nonrelated people can live together...that's hell on the students plus brings up the question of "nontraditional" lovers living together. In a town made up of several artists and musicians, and with rental prices rising, this is causing quite a stir...
Posts: 1572 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:wouldn't it make more sense to go after the university, requesting that any students with a certain number of community complaints be expelled?
This isn't much of an incentive. After being expelled, they still live in the same house and now have more time to party.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ben, The right to search your premises without a warrant???!!! If people aren't rioting in the streets over that, then you all deserve what you get. Seriously, I would contact the ACLU immediately and put a stop to this. Just the thread of that group coming to a town could be just what's needed to inject a little sense into things.
posted
actions being taken. people are taking it to the streets trust me. and it's being written into all the rental contracts that you are authorizing said searches.
Posts: 1572 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, darn, PC, I hate it when that happens. You completely blew what I thought was a pretty good idea right out of the water. I was presupposing that kids would go home to mommy and daddy if they got kicked out of school. Which would solve the community's problem. But you're right... darnit.
I still don't think it should rest on the landlords though. I see the city council's proposal as just one more anti-business move.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ben, I would not sign such a contract. Ever. Strike it out, initial it, and then sign the lease. If the owner/property manager doesn't like it, then just tell them that if they discriminate against you on the basis of that line in the lease, you will immediately sue them and tie up their property in the courts and the National press.
I'm serious. This is so wrong it can't possibly be constitutional. You cannot be forced by a need for shelter to sign over a basic right that's in the Constitution.
Have you called NPR yet? This is exactly the kind of weird local government run amok story that they would love!
Jeniwren, putting the onus on the landlords is also not right. It's probably an over-reaction to a few crummy situations, but the crafters of the law decided to go for broke, you know. I think the real way to handle this is to toughen the law for repeat offenses of the laws regarding disturbing the peace.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
we've already gotten national press coverage for it. apparently they are getting away with it via some loophole. but at the same time, it's not being enforced...yet.
Posts: 1572 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ben, one other question. This isn't just some "reasonable access" clause is it? You seem to be implying that the tenants are signing a lease that allows law enforcement into their apartment without a warrant and without probable cause.
If this is just a clause that secures the landlord's right to enter an apartment when you aren't there (e.g., in cases of emergency, etc.) then I think every lease I've ever signed had that. It's a basic protection of the property thing. And it keeps you from suing them if they legitimately enter your place and you claim an invasion of privacy.
Now, if you get arrested because they bring the police in and find contraband or evidence of a crime, then I think you still have the legal right to demand that a warrant be served. If that is the right you are being asked to sign away, then you must go to battle against this and not give up until you win!!!!
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another thing to do is organize a political rally and let the City Counci (or whomever) know just how many votes they are going to lose in the next election.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
the mayor stepped into this one. she's a kickass mayor. unfortunately the old one was bitter about losing so before he left office he brought this thing to surface (it's been lurking for several years. it was one of those things drafted but never really paid any attention to.) it was dirty politics...
and no, this states that law enforcement can approach the landlord at any time, without any justification and demand rental records and access to the property.
Posts: 1572 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ben, I've lived in several college towns and in a lot of instances it's the college in the middle of this vast rural wasteland that looks at the college as some kind of stain on the landscape. SOP are to have things voted on during the summer; to not give 'transients', aka college students, voting privileges, etc. It all pretty much sucks and it's all pretty standard. Your law regarding two non-related people living together is actually quite common in many towns and states, a blue law left over from the dark ages. Like sodomy laws, it can be whipped out and used on any moral undesirables at the whim of the local yokels.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I took a bath on a condo in Anchorage to avoid being a landlord. In hindsight, I should have stuck it out....the housing market got better just a few years after I sold. Oh well.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
If people aren't rioting in the streets over that, then you all deserve what you get. Seriously, I would contact the ACLU immediately and put a stop to this. Just the thread of that group coming to a town could be just what's needed to inject a little sense into things.
