1. Post #41
    I've got a bad feeling about this
    Sonador's Avatar
    December 2007
    2,629 Posts
    That would require sufficient shelter coverage though, if there isn't any available how do you carry out a safe and humane eviction?
    You don't, and you follow whatever channels there are to recover damages from the city since their failure to maintain the proper course of action for you is causing you measurable loss.

  2. Post #42
    Gold Member
    coyote93's Avatar
    December 2011
    2,226 Posts
    Building owners Cascade Management and Northwest Housing Alternatives sent Batts a notice telling her she was late on a $338 rent payment. When Batts did not pay, they filed an eviction complaint. Batts did not appear at the hearing, and the court automatically ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. On October 21 she was evicted.
    How can people call them cruel? It's buisness, they gave her a chance. It's not the buildings owners responsibility to take care of people's personal problems. They rent out a place to live, if you can't pay, they don't earn anything and out you go, it's as simple as that.
    Martha McLennan, executive director of Northwest Housing Alternatives, told KATU-TV that Batts had grown unstable in mid-2016, "becoming involved in a variety of lease violations that were either damage of property or late payments, also incidents against staff and other tenants." McLennan claimed that "there were dozens of attempts to help," but "when someone decline[s] service there's not much you can do."
    Seeing as this weren't the first time she violated the lease,and they actually gave her multiple chances it seems, and that people offered her help, I don't see what else they could've done.

    Besides, a big thing to take notice of here is the period between her eviction and the date she froze to death. Its three fucking months.

    Batts suffered from schizophrenia, according to her family. Her mother, Elizabeth, told Oregon Public Broadcasting that "Nobody reached out to us… nobody cared about us to tell us what was going on. I mean, why couldn't somebody tell us something?" If she knew her daughter had been in danger of eviction, the mother claimed, she would have paid her rent, as she had many times previously.
    Her family seems to blame the housing owners? But honestly, I have never heard of a housing company that takes contact with someones mother or family if they can't pay their rent. And the mother says she would've paid the rent for her if she'd known? I kinda have my doubts, seems really weird that they wouldn't have had any contact, or understood that something was wrong over a three month period, especially when both Christmas and new years eve both are in said period. And normally, wouldn't knowing someone close to you were suffering from schizophrenia be a pretty good reason to keep in contact and keep an extra eye on that person, both to help and support them?

    Multiple things here seems to be wrong, from the point that the lady weren't deemed eligible under the mental health intervention's program, to the fact that the family doesn't sound to give a shit, to the point that she were out in the cold for three months without anyone noticing, or her actually doing anything about it herself. It seems really stupid to blame her death only on the eviction as hard as many here seems to do.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Firefox Norway Show Events Starred Starred x 3 (list)

  3. Post #43
    insert long title here
    SEKCobra's Avatar
    January 2009
    15,934 Posts
    I remember hearing on the radio about a man with a similar story. he was able to shortly delay his death from the cold by drinking antifreeze
    No.

    If there's a legal order to prevent eviction on the grounds of inadequate shelter and/or mental incompetency, and institutionalization isn't an option, then the court also needs to be willing to cover all of the costs incurred by the landlord, because a non-paying tenant who is actively damaging the property can rapidly burden a lessor with tens of thousands of dollars in expenses.
    I assumed there would be laws for it in the US as well, just saying.

    Well... Yeah?
    I don't think anyone here is arguing for anything more than that.
    I would go further than inhumane, I'd class it as murder. You don't evict someone in the winter without checking if they can actually go somewhere adequate for the weather. They knew it was a possible scenario that she'd be out in freezing weather which could easily kill her, but chose to do nothing about it.

    Knowing someone might die because of a decision you made and not doing anything to stop it, is murder in my books
    Edited:

    How can people call them cruel? It's buisness, they gave her a chance. It's not the buildings owners responsibility to take care of people's personal problems. They rent out a place to live, if you can't pay, they don't earn anything and out you go, it's as simple as that.
    I will disagree with you on this part, housing can't be viewed as "just business". If there is no alternative available to someone, an eviction shouldn't be possible until it is. But of course a tenant doesn't become the responsibility of the landlord, if they are mentally ill they just need to be reported, otherwise I feel like it is the responsibility of the government to pay the landlord until a shelter is found.
    But again, someone just unwilling and not mentally ill has the right to let themselves be put on the street.

  4. Post #44
    Gold Member
    _Axel's Avatar
    September 2009
    6,690 Posts
    You don't, and you follow whatever channels there are to recover damages from the city since their failure to maintain the proper course of action for you is causing you measurable loss.
    Sounds fair.

  5. Post #45
    Gold Member
    coyote93's Avatar
    December 2011
    2,226 Posts
    I will disagree with you on this part, housing can't be viewed as "just business". If there is no alternative available to someone, an eviction shouldn't be possible until it is. But of course a tenant doesn't become the responsibility of the landlord, if they are mentally ill they just need to be reported, otherwise I feel like it is the responsibility of the government to pay the landlord until a shelter is found.
    But again, someone just unwilling and not mentally ill has the right to let themselves be put on the street.
    Well, housing is just a service, just as everything else offered for money is. Even if this housing service was especially for elderly and disabled, that still makes it a business, and from the article it seems like they did more to try and help her, than what was required of them.

    And it is mentioned in the article, that there were privacy laws that prevented them from contacting family, and I would guess that those laws also prevented them from contacting and reporting it to the government?

    While I partially can agree with you on the point that a mentally ill person might be the responsibility of the government, there is the fact to consider that she apparently didn't qualify to be part of their program. Which could indicate that no one really were aware of just how mentally ill she actually were, or that she were less mentally ill than what the family seems to think. Either way, I don't see how the housing people is at fault for what happened.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Firefox Norway Show Events Starred Starred x 1 (list)

  6. Post #46
    insert long title here
    SEKCobra's Avatar
    January 2009
    15,934 Posts
    Well, housing is just a service, just as everything else offered for money is. Even if this housing service was especially for elderly and disabled, that still makes it a business, and from the article it seems like they did more to try and help her, than what was required of them.

    And it is mentioned in the article, that there were privacy laws that prevented them from contacting family, and I would guess that those laws also prevented them from contacting and reporting it to the government?

    While I partially can agree with you on the point that a mentally ill person might be the responsibility of the government, there is the fact to consider that she apparently didn't qualify to be part of their program. Which could indicate that no one really were aware of just how mentally ill she actually were, or that she were less mentally ill than what the family seems to think. Either way, I don't see how the housing people is at fault for what happened.
    Privacy laws preventing family intervention is always a good thing, if someone doesn't want family to know it's their good right.
    Again, in this case I see no fault with the landlords at all, but generally speaking I don't feel that housing can be seen as just a business, similar to how prisons shouldn't ever be just a business.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 10 Firefox Austria Show Events Starred Starred x 2 (list)

  7. Post #47

    June 2016
    582 Posts
    Several posters in the beginning of the thread crying foul, when she was evicted for very legitimate reasons, and, above else, in fucking October.

    Not reading the article even at THIS scale should be a bannable offense, or else this is insanity.

  8. Post #48

    December 2015
    1,976 Posts
    Housing is just a business and just a service but it should not be. Shelter should be a right. But it should be handled by government, not by forcing landlords to keep shitty tenants.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 10 Chrome Latvia Show Events Starred Starred x 1 (list)

  9. Post #49
    Spirit Guide
    Big Dumb American's Avatar
    March 2009
    22,715 Posts
    I will disagree with you on this part, housing can't be viewed as "just business". If there is no alternative available to someone, an eviction shouldn't be possible until it is. But of course a tenant doesn't become the responsibility of the landlord, if they are mentally ill they just need to be reported, otherwise I feel like it is the responsibility of the government to pay the landlord until a shelter is found.
    But again, someone just unwilling and not mentally ill has the right to let themselves be put on the street.
    It is a business, however. I'm not investing in real estate out of the goodness of my heart, I'm investing in real estate because I see it as a ticket to financial security. The positive benefit of this to society, however, is that I provide housing. Most importantly, the housing I provide is that which would instead most likely be sitting vacant and condemned, because I invest time and money into finding and rehabbing homes that other people don't wants, because those often present the best opportunities for me. I put my money to work and use it to help me break out of the economic lower class, and everybody else benefits as a result of my work.

    If I get saddled with an unfair burden, however, then the best case scenario is that real estate investment is no longer a safe or secure financial choice for me. I curse the fools responsible and stop investing. Worst case scenario, it financially ruins me, throwing me into bankruptcy and damning me to poverty for the rest of my life. Either way, I suffer, and the economy in general suffers. Real estate investors dropping out results in a housing shortage and a marked reduction in economic mobility.

    As for compensation, how do you define it? How far does it extend? There are a lot of factors to consider, here!

    For example: if the property needs significant repairs after the tenant has vacated, would I be reimbursed for those? Would it be a full or partial reimbursement? How would I apply for that compensation? How quickly would I receive the money? Would it be before or after the repairs were completed? If the repairs take a significant amount of time, will I also be reimbursed for the necessary period of vacancy I would suffer during the course of the repairs? What if the full extent of the damage isn't immediately realized, and, a year after the tenant leaves, my inspector finds that something that was initially undetectable has since grown into a very big and expensive problem? Is that reimbursable? What's the statue of limitations, here? One year? Five years? Ten?

    What if the property is so badly damaged that the repairs exceed the value? Will the court purchase me a new property?

    What if I am renting in a city that has "anti-crime" laws for landlords, which revoke my rental license if that tenant causes a public nuisance or is arrested? Will I be protected from that judgment? If not, will the compensation cover the expense of appealing that process, and the cost of missed rent as a result of having my license terminated? If so, will that compensation extend to the missed rent from all my other properties as well, since the license applies to all properties within city limits?

    What if, when I am finally allowed to evict the tenant, we have entered into a seasonal slow market and I have trouble finding a new tenant, which wouldn't have been a problem had I been able to evict the tenant on the usual timeline and/or had a good tenant who stayed until the end of a usual lease? Will I be compensated for my vacancy?

    What if that tenant causes such a nuisance that my professional reputation is damaged? The neighborhood turns against me, start posting reviews of my rental business online stating that I'm hurting their property values and causing a public nuisance by renting my properties to unhinged or violent people? Future potential tenants could see those poor reviews, and refuse to come rent with me. What if others within the neighborhood refuse to entertain my investment offers because of that bad reputation, so I can't even keep doing business in the area? How can you even put a price on that?

    At the end of day, forcing private real estate businesses to provide housing to bad tenants is not wise at all. You need to provide dedicated resources to help those in need: you can't just co-opt other people's livelihood.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Chrome United States Show Events Starred Starred x 4 (list)

  10. Post #50
    Gold Member
    01271's Avatar
    October 2009
    6,842 Posts
    We got a fucking dumb bitch of a tenant once that barged into others' places and stopped paying rent. We evicted her the fuck outta there but we at least had the whole thing set up with the local temp houses so she didn't get as screwed.

  11. Post #51
    Spirit Guide
    Big Dumb American's Avatar
    March 2009
    22,715 Posts
    We got a fucking dumb bitch of a tenant once that barged into others' places and stopped paying rent. We evicted her the fuck outta there but we at least had the whole thing set up with the local temp houses so she didn't get as screwed.
    Temporary public housing is a good idea. That is exactly what I think is needed for situations like this.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Chrome United States Show Events Starred Starred x 2 (list)

  12. Post #52
    insert long title here
    SEKCobra's Avatar
    January 2009
    15,934 Posts
    It is a business, however. I'm not investing in real estate out of the goodness of my heart, I'm investing in real estate because I see it as a ticket to financial security. The positive benefit of this to society, however, is that I provide housing. Most importantly, the housing I provide is that which would instead most likely be sitting vacant and condemned, because I invest time and money into finding and rehabbing homes that other people don't wants, because those often present the best opportunities for me. I put my money to work and use it to help me break out of the economic lower class, and everybody else benefits as a result of my work.

    If I get saddled with an unfair burden, however, then the best case scenario is that real estate investment is no longer a safe or secure financial choice for me. I curse the fools responsible and stop investing. Worst case scenario, it financially ruins me, throwing me into bankruptcy and damning me to poverty for the rest of my life. Either way, I suffer, and the economy in general suffers. Real estate investors dropping out results in a housing shortage and a marked reduction in economic mobility.

    As for compensation, how do you define it? How far does it extend? There are a lot of factors to consider, here!

    For example: if the property needs significant repairs after the tenant has vacated, would I be reimbursed for those? Would it be a full or partial reimbursement? How would I apply for that compensation? How quickly would I receive the money? Would it be before or after the repairs were completed? If the repairs take a significant amount of time, will I also be reimbursed for the necessary period of vacancy I would suffer during the course of the repairs? What if the full extent of the damage isn't immediately realized, and, a year after the tenant leaves, my inspector finds that something that was initially undetectable has since grown into a very big and expensive problem? Is that reimbursable? What's the statue of limitations, here? One year? Five years? Ten?

    What if the property is so badly damaged that the repairs exceed the value? Will the court purchase me a new property?

    What if I am renting in a city that has "anti-crime" laws for landlords, which revoke my rental license if that tenant causes a public nuisance or is arrested? Will I be protected from that judgment? If not, will the compensation cover the expense of appealing that process, and the cost of missed rent as a result of having my license terminated? If so, will that compensation extend to the missed rent from all my other properties as well, since the license applies to all properties within city limits?

    What if, when I am finally allowed to evict the tenant, we have entered into a seasonal slow market and I have trouble finding a new tenant, which wouldn't have been a problem had I been able to evict the tenant on the usual timeline and/or had a good tenant who stayed until the end of a usual lease? Will I be compensated for my vacancy?

    What if that tenant causes such a nuisance that my professional reputation is damaged? The neighborhood turns against me, start posting reviews of my rental business online stating that I'm hurting their property values and causing a public nuisance by renting my properties to unhinged or violent people? Future potential tenants could see those poor reviews, and refuse to come rent with me. What if others within the neighborhood refuse to entertain my investment offers because of that bad reputation, so I can't even keep doing business in the area? How can you even put a price on that?

    At the end of day, forcing private real estate businesses to provide housing to bad tenants is not wise at all. You need to provide dedicated resources to help those in need: you can't just co-opt other people's livelihood.
    Again, I don't think that should happen either, however it is perfectly fine to force it as a temporary measure. I mean if we are going the whole capitalist route, I'll argue with the same mindset and say "shouldn't have taken on the tenant in the first place then".
    But obviously it's a stopgap solution, there should be public housing available and if it isn't it has to be made available ASAP.
    My point is simply, that you can't make housing just a business. Of course it is a business. Of course the landlord has to look after his own interest. But you can't have 'profit above everything' with housing. It's the same with healthcare and many other industries. I know the reality in the USA is often exactly that principle. And I know it is a common mindset that 'the market regulates itself'. But, in my opinion, that's bullshit. So while the burden on 'the business' has to be minimized as much as possible, it can never be the highest ranking priority in some fields, including housing.

  13. Post #53
    Spirit Guide
    Big Dumb American's Avatar
    March 2009
    22,715 Posts
    I'm not trying to argue that the market sorts everything out by itself. Obviously people through the cracks and need some outside help from time to time-- I'm with you 100% on that. I just that I think that forcing their welfare directly onto individual landlords is far from an ideal solution. It places undue burden on indivuals to shoulder the weight of a broader societal issue. As you said, things such as temporary public housing are a much more appropriate answer.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Android Chrome United States Show Events Starred Starred x 2 (list)

  14. Post #54
    We Are No Idiots
    Aide's Avatar
    March 2010
    6,121 Posts
    If shes missed a rent payment chances are she probably didn't get new housing because she couldn't afford the down payment for one. It's like a double edge sword.

  15. Post #55
    ChinChilla's Avatar
    August 2006
    125 Posts
    it's always nice seeing my home city in the headlines... honestly we would need saudi arabia sized camps to house all the homeless in portland. when you drive in from the highway both sides of the roads are filled with shanty camps. trash and shit all over the place. it's disgusting

  16. Post #56
    Gone but never forgotten.
    Code3Response's Avatar
    November 2009
    21,197 Posts
    Aren't there laws against eviction during winter?
    October is not winter

    Edited:

    The lady literally had 3 months to find new housing and didnt

  17. Post #57
    Gold Member
    MR-X's Avatar
    January 2005
    8,778 Posts
    Housing is a business.

    Don't pay and you get kicked out. Simple as that. Don't like it, don't miss your rent.

    It's sad that this person died, but it is ultimately their own fault. This person did nothing to prevent the situation. They could have made arrangements with the landlords, they could have went to their court date, and done various other things. It also does not help that this person had a history of being a shitty tenant.

    For you guys calling for murder/manslaughter charges need to calm down and stop going to the extreme. I can feel for the her and say her death is sad and tragic. But i can also recognize that this is ultimately her own fault.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 10 Firefox United States Show Events Starred Starred x 2 (list)

  18. Post #58
    Gold Member
    Mr. Someguy's Avatar
    March 2006
    29,862 Posts
    Aren't there like Shelters for people in need in the US?
    There are but a lot of "sane" homeless people despise how they're run. From what I've read from homeless survivors, they did not stay at shelters for long because the shelter treats you as if you're a mentally ill drug addict, whilst you're surrounded by actual mentally ill drug addicts that may hurt or steal from you. So they end up back on the street because it actually feels safer and less demeaning.

  19. Post #59
    No such thing as overkill.
    catbarf's Avatar
    January 2007
    10,792 Posts
    I will disagree with you on this part, housing can't be viewed as "just business".
    I admit I don't know your country's laws particularly well, but food is every bit as much 'just business' as housing, yet I can't imagine your restaurants and grocers are legally required to provide thousands of euros of free food every month for people who don't have the money or refuse to pay, with no legal recourse.

    I mean I understand what you're saying, housing is not something you can simply do without. But it's not the role of businesses to provide charity at their own expense, especially since laws that delay or prevent eviction are frequently exploited by terrible tenants who don't need nor deserve the assistance. When it comes to people who really do need charity, the free market might not be able to sort the situation out on its own, but that just means the government should intervene directly, not point its finger at landlords and say 'this is your problem'.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Firefox United States Show Events Starred Starred x 2 (list)

  20. Post #60
    sebbers's Avatar
    September 2012
    59 Posts
    Very tragic that someone died, but the people calling for the landlord's head, going as far as accusing them of murder...YIKES. Like someone pointed out, a LOT of landlord's aren't rolling in the benjamins, they are average people trying to make more income. Having someone taking up one of their few (possibly ONLY) properties for MONTHS in the winter without receiving any income could lead to them being financially ruined.

    It's really no one's fault. The woman was mentally ill, the landlord's had to kick her out, and her mental illness drove her to an accidental death. It isn't anyone's responsibility to contact her family either, she's a grown adult.

  21. Post #61
    insert long title here
    SEKCobra's Avatar
    January 2009
    15,934 Posts
    I admit I don't know your country's laws particularly well, but food is every bit as much 'just business' as housing, yet I can't imagine your restaurants and grocers are legally required to provide thousands of euros of free food every month for people who don't have the money or refuse to pay, with no legal recourse.

    I mean I understand what you're saying, housing is not something you can simply do without. But it's not the role of businesses to provide charity at their own expense, especially since laws that delay or prevent eviction are frequently exploited by terrible tenants who don't need nor deserve the assistance. When it comes to people who really do need charity, the free market might not be able to sort the situation out on its own, but that just means the government should intervene directly, not point its finger at landlords and say 'this is your problem'.
    My country has a huge healthcare & welfare system, there is no way you'll be homeless and without food unless trying really hard. You CAN always get shelter here. (Just have to follow rules on drugs, alcohol...)
    So that's not comparable.
    But I agree with you, you can't just put the burden on the landlord. But in a system with no public housing available, it is necessary to put part of it on the landlord sometimes. Obviously a fair reimbursement has to be given in those cases.

    But as long as there is no system in place to solve these issues, some of the burden is gonna fall on the landlord, because there simply is no other way. And while I don't agree with the sentiment, as long as it is like that I feel anyone opposed to that can suck a dick and eat his own argument like I mentioned above ("Shouldn't have taken on the tenant in the first place then")

  22. Post #62
    Gold Member
    Mr. Someguy's Avatar
    March 2006
    29,862 Posts
    The lady literally had 3 months to find new housing and didnt
    Or couldn't, seeing as she couldn't afford her current low-cost apartment.

  23. Post #63
    Spirit Guide
    Big Dumb American's Avatar
    March 2009
    22,715 Posts
    My country has a huge healthcare & welfare system, there is no way you'll be homeless and without food unless trying really hard. You CAN always get shelter here. (Just have to follow rules on drugs, alcohol...)
    So that's not comparable.
    But I agree with you, you can't just put the burden on the landlord. But in a system with no public housing available, it is necessary to put part of it on the landlord sometimes. Obviously a fair reimbursement has to be given in those cases.

    But as long as there is no system in place to solve these issues, some of the burden is gonna fall on the landlord, because there simply is no other way. And while I don't agree with the sentiment, as long as it is like that I feel anyone opposed to that can suck a dick and eat his own argument like I mentioned above ("Shouldn't have taken on the tenant in the first place then")
    Don't tell people who disagree with you to "suck a dick," man. Not okay. Obviously you and I have different perspectives regarding this, and that's to be expected, but my reasons for thinking differently are valid. Nobody here is arguing that poor people deserve to die, only about what kind of solution is actually acceptable.

  24. Post #64
    haha oh boy here we go again
    Snowmew's Avatar
    November 2011
    2,082 Posts
    My country has a huge healthcare & welfare system, there is no way you'll be homeless and without food unless trying really hard. You CAN always get shelter here. (Just have to follow rules on drugs, alcohol...)
    So that's not comparable.
    But I agree with you, you can't just put the burden on the landlord. But in a system with no public housing available, it is necessary to put part of it on the landlord sometimes. Obviously a fair reimbursement has to be given in those cases.

    But as long as there is no system in place to solve these issues, some of the burden is gonna fall on the landlord, because there simply is no other way. And while I don't agree with the sentiment, as long as it is like that I feel anyone opposed to that can suck a dick and eat his own argument like I mentioned above ("Shouldn't have taken on the tenant in the first place then")
    This whole "sometimes" game is really wearing thin. Are you for or against the financial burden of nonpaying tenants being placed in any part on their landlords?

    It is the same thing. If you get public assistance for food, the grocery store doesn't lose money, they get the money from the government as if the government was footing the bill 100% right there in person. If you get Section 8 housing assistance, the government more or less pays a set rate to landlords who accept Section 8 tenants, in which case the government covers your rent if it is more than around 30% of your income. None of the financial burden is put on the landlord, in the same sense as none of the burden is placed on the grocery store owner.

  25. Post #65
    Gold Member
    Del91's Avatar
    October 2010
    14,255 Posts
    Or couldn't, seeing as she couldn't afford her current low-cost apartment.
    If she couldn't afford her rent there, she wasn't going to find housing anywhere else. Housing in and around Portland is awful

  26. Post #66
    Gone but never forgotten.
    Code3Response's Avatar
    November 2009
    21,197 Posts
    Or couldn't, seeing as she couldn't afford her current low-cost apartment.
    And somehow this is the landlords problem?

  27. Post #67
    insert long title here
    SEKCobra's Avatar
    January 2009
    15,934 Posts
    Don't tell people who disagree with you to "suck a dick," man. Not okay. Obviously you and I have different perspectives regarding this, and that's to be expected, but my reasons for thinking differently are valid. Nobody here is arguing that poor people deserve to die, only about what kind of solution is actually acceptable.
    The dick sucking was just intended toward people who think that the issue should sort itself (AKA against welfare) and also against the burden caused by there being no system. It definitely wasn't aimed toward you, I think your argument is absolutely valid.

  28. Post #68
    Gold Member
    _Axel's Avatar
    September 2009
    6,690 Posts
    This whole "sometimes" game is really wearing thin. Are you for or against the financial burden of nonpaying tenants being placed in any part on their landlords?

    It is the same thing. If you get public assistance for food, the grocery store doesn't lose money, they get the money from the government as if the government was footing the bill 100% right there in person. If you get Section 8 housing assistance, the government more or less pays a set rate to landlords who accept Section 8 tenants, in which case the government covers your rent if it is more than around 30% of your income. None of the financial burden is put on the landlord, in the same sense as none of the burden is placed on the grocery store owner.
    Obviously a fair reimbursement has to be given in those cases.

  29. Post #69
    Killed postal with a fart once.
    gk99's Avatar
    December 2007
    17,927 Posts
    That sucks, but globally it's still a better outcome than having people freeze to death, is it not?
    Whenever you're forcing someone to take someone into their private property and take care of them? Nah. The court can take care of her and set up a place for her to live if we're assigning responsibility to anyone, it's not the landlord's job to deal with her problems.

    If we're just talking about having the court pay for her rent until the winter's over then yes, perfect solution if we can fund it, but her problems are certainly not the landlord's.

    Edited:

    Unfortunately that's not really how it works here though. The government doesn't really provide you with food, shelter, or water despite those being the things you need to survive.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 10 Firefox United States Show Events Starred Starred x 1 (list)