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.
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.
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.
But again, someone just unwilling and not mentally ill has the right to let themselves be put on the street.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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'.
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.
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")
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.
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.
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.