Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
This Town, Is Coming Like a Ghost Town
Wendy McElroy has a roundup of links about dubious evictions in post-Katrina New Orleans. Her summary: "In short, they force people out their homes, keep them away from their homes at gunpoint and, then, post the legally-required notices on front doors that renters cannot access. But, hey, it's legal."
|11.3.05 @ 3:40PM|#
Alternet captures the human impact of these evictions by
presenting Giselle Smith, "a single mom with three children" who
returned to a damaged but intact house that she meticulously
cleaned up and restored. Her problem? She rents. "The very day that
the governor lifted the moratorium on evictions, her landlord
presented her with an eviction notice. The reason? Failure to pay
September's rent. The Smiths, like everyone else in the city, had
been forced to evacuate, and her home had no electricity or water
or sewage. She also had to pay rent in Houston for September, and
didn't have money to pay rent in two places. Ms. Smith is
determined to fight the eviction, and local lawyers have come to
her aid. But the real reason for the eviction notice is that houses
that didn't flood are at a premium and her landlord, like many
others, is eager to cash in. Ms. Smith's neighbors down the block
were paying $800 rent until they came home to find their rent
jacked up to $1,300. By end of the week her long-time neighbors, a
black family, had packed up and a white family took their
place
I'm waiting for soem folks to explain that the landlord's actions
are just and moral, since he's just trying to maximize his profit
in a free market.
|11.3.05 @ 3:44PM|#
I'm sure you won't have to wait long, #6.
wait wait... I mean Mrs. Smith should have known that eventually
N.O. would turn into a gigantic pond and that she'd have to
evacuate. If she couldn't afford the costs of evacuation, etc., she
simply should have chosen some other place to live. Caveat emptor
and all that good shit.
|11.3.05 @ 3:50PM|#
Or how about
Since housing is at a premium now and can demand higher prices,
homebuilders will flock to the area to cash in on the larger than
normal profits to be made. In this scenario some people will be
hurt in the short term, but prices will come down quickly as new
housing is constructed (by the greedy eager to cash in on human
misery).
Or we can fix prices at pre-disaster rates, ensuring that the
incentive for new construction stays at pre-disaster levels despite
the now greater demand. In this scenario a few of people benifit in
the short term, but a lot are screwed in the long (by the greeedy
not so eager to cash in on human misery if there isn't any cash to
actually be had).
|11.3.05 @ 3:50PM|#
The residents of Ward 9 should take a que from the residents of the Parisian suburbs.
|11.3.05 @ 3:54PM|#
Agammamon-I was waiting for the strawman to appear, and it didn't take long. So, for clarity�I did not say one thing about government regulation (although a contractual case could be made in Smith's scenario). What I hinted at, and will say directly now, is that the actions of the landlord are despicable.
|11.3.05 @ 3:56PM|#
Well just because it is legal and it is a free market doesn't mean you are not a prick for taking advantage of people. I support their right to do what they want with their property and I understand they probably need the money to make repairs to their property but they need to give more notice and work with folks. Of course people are jerks, no news there.
|11.3.05 @ 3:58PM|#
"I'm waiting for soem folks to explain that the landlord's
actions are just and moral, since he's just trying to maximize his
profit in a free market."
Well, you'll have to wait for an objectivist to do that.
What a libertarian will tell you that yes, it's awful (especially
since they used the government to accomplish it in the first
place), but the best solution is not to get coercive. Rather, if
you are truly disturbed, help these victims out with your own
money, time, etc.
Actually, in a common law state they probably have a decent
argument if they were prevented by law from entering the property -
impossibility of performance, etc., as well as some warranty of
habitability defenses. LA? Well, besides its notorious corruption,
is also a civil law state. Can't tell you what kind of craziness
that might produce in this situation...
|11.3.05 @ 4:20PM|#
I'd imagine that by not paying her September rent, she voided the lease. I doubt there was a "if the entire freakin' metropolitan area, including lessee's apartment, is uninhabitable, lessee shall not have to pay rent on apartment until capable of residing there again." clause.
|11.3.05 @ 4:20PM|#
Apologies for the threadjack, but the Congressional Research
Service, has released
a memo stating that they have no record of written procedures
detailing how the BATFE goes about determining if a firearm is
classified under the National Firearms Act. Basically, it turns out
that they pretty much just make it up as they go along.
More info
here
fyodor|11.3.05 @ 4:33PM|#
Ira,
Yes she had a lease, but she didn't pay her rent while out of town
to save her life. That said, you would think a court would at least
consider that if her home had no electricity or water or sewage,
then the landlord could be equally culpable for breaking the terms
of the lease.
Regarding the landlord's actions, I hesitate to criticize just
because it's just so damn easy to do so and there's no way for
anyone to know if the criticizer would behave any differently in
the same circumstances. There's also the consideration that for the
landlord to do anything other than what maximizes his profits is
essentially charity, or more broadly, generosity. Now, I am
certainly NOT saying charity or generosity are bad, as I believe an
Objectivist might, only that it is generally considered above and
beyond, not required. And if one wants charity given to the tenant,
then why not give it to the tenant yourself? (That latter point
being in league with what quasibill said.) The counter argument I
can think of to that is that the landlord is in an advantaged
position to provide charity compared to others. None of the rest of
us can provide the tenant with a place to live by doing nothing.
But that seems like a matter of degree, rather than the black/white
view that the landlord is clearly wrong and a cretin, which I can
easily pronounce from my comfortable distance.
Well, I wish the best for all involved in an obviously difficult
situation.
|11.3.05 @ 4:41PM|#
Number 6,
You're completely correct that you did not say anything about
government regualtion, neither did Steven Crane.
But you certainly did give me the impression that you disproved of
the landlords actions (and to an extent so do I)and that maybe to
avoid this sort of abuse in the future we should make a law against
it. Admittedly, you didn't *say* that, I inferred it.
The regulatory option was just the first of the ways I thought of
to fix the price to prevent "gouging" and shouldn't be taken as
implying that you held that position.
On the other hand you did ask for someone to justify the landlord's
actions as moral, and I think that I did a decent job of pointng
out that while he may not be the nicest person on earth, and acting
out of base motive, he's actually helping the situation as a whole,
even if he's hurting a few.
He isn't *good* just better than evil.
|11.3.05 @ 4:45PM|#
I think if the evictees decided to fight it in court they would
have an excellent change or winning. Aside from the extraordinary
circumstances, it is right and proper for the tenant to withhold
rent when the premises is not fit for human habitation as a stick
to force the landlord to fix it.
I would call being underwater, and then having no power, sewage,
etc... uninhabitable, and so no rent should be paid. The tenant had
every legal right not to pay rent.
That would be result according to the property class I took last
year.
Eviction
Windypundit|11.3.05 @ 4:48PM|#
I'd imagine that by not paying her September rent, she
voided the lease. I doubt there was a "if the entire freakin'
metropolitan area, including lessee's apartment, is uninhabitable,
lessee shall not have to pay rent on apartment until capable of
residing there again." clause.
I think it's the other way around. In most states, regardless of
what the lease says, there is an implied guarantee of habitability.
When flooding forced her out, the landlord was no longer meeting
his obligation. He's the one who bought property in a flood zone,
he's the one who pays the price when his property becomes
uninhabitable. There's no way she owes rent on a place no one could
live in.
|11.3.05 @ 4:59PM|#
Agamemnon, do you really think landlords need to be evicting
people and spiking rents in order to create demand for housing in
New Orleans, that builders will fill?
And all of these arguments about the tenants' rights are true, but
irrelevant. She's out of the house. Is she supposed to live in the
mud until her case gets called in land court in 2009?
|11.3.05 @ 5:02PM|#
Doesn't the article say the house didn't flood? So was it actually uninhabitable?
|11.3.05 @ 5:02PM|#
Agammamamon- The whole thing really comes down to a common
misconception that calling someone's actions shitty and immoral
means that "there otta be a law." Of course, as libertarians, most
of us agree with that. Some, on the other hand, make the same
mistake, but in reverse: if it's permitted (or should be by the
market) it's ok.
In this case, I suspect there already is a law, at least insofar as
Smith had a lease, but even if the landlord's actions are legal,
they are shitty. In other words, I'm not calling for more laws; I'm
calling the landlord an asshole.
jimmy|11.3.05 @ 5:04PM|#
whatever happened to property rights? some of you are on the wrong website.
|11.3.05 @ 5:07PM|#
In Massachusetts the guarantee of habitability is not implied, it must be made explicit, and is in the standard RHA-lease that many landlords use. But then, the tenant laws in MA are so slanted towards tenants that landlords must go to extraordinary lengths to evict tenants, even ones who intentionally damage or destroy the property so as to make it uninhabitable.
fyodor|11.3.05 @ 5:21PM|#
And all of these arguments about the tenants' rights are
true, but irrelevant. She's out of the house. Is she supposed to
live in the mud until her case gets called in land court in
2009?
Well, it takes a bit for an eviction notice to take effect. I don't
think you can usually lock someone out without warning them first.
Then I think they usually have between three days and a month to
vacate. But anyway, what's your point, joe? Do you want the cops to
side with the tenant? Well...maybe they should, but on what
basis?
|11.3.05 @ 5:23PM|#
Number 6 you're right - he is an asshole but it does seem that a
strict reading of the law supports him. Of course I'm no expert on
this and imagine that existing law will (eventually) find for the
tenant.
Joe - I think that evicting tenants and jacking up prices is
necessary to *speed* up the rebuilding process. There are a lot of
areas in the country that need housing and can compete for building
resources at pre-disaster NO prices.
Increase the prices that construction in NO can command and you
naturally have more people deciding to do business with NO.
|11.3.05 @ 5:24PM|#
Unfortunately, I don't have the legal sources at hand, but as I
am aware, a mandatory evacuation was issued and residents were not
allowed to return to their homes during the time period after the
hurricane. Depending on the definition of "manadatory evacuation",
the resident could argue that the lease was essentially suspended
for a time period by the government, which prevented her from
residing there. If the landowner needed recompense for that lapse,
it should fall on insurance of either the propoerty or renter's
insurance. There are many many options to pursue to retrieve this
money that does not involve evicting the resident.
Taken together, I think the landlord is an asshole and I would like
to see him punished in the market by having people refuse to deal
with him. Knowing that the market will not, however, do this, I
would not be adverse to some general harassment and personal
property vandalism.
fyodor|11.3.05 @ 5:28PM|#
jimmy,
Are you serious? Part and parcel of property rights are contract
rights. And there are arguably ethical concerns that should remain
underneath the radar of the law, thus a libertarian may think doing
something should be allowed under the law but still open to
criticism. Is there something else said here you find contrary to
respect for property rights?
|11.3.05 @ 5:41PM|#
Agammamon:
Rebuilding NO is not necessary. Risk management should tell us that
the places most in need of demolishing and rebuilding SHOULD NOT BE
REBUILT!!!
Let's not assume that the levees have been admirably fixed forever
by the Army core of engineers, but that maybe building 10 feet
below seas level was not a very wise move. Its not important to
precipitate a housing boom in NO, nor is it wise to encourage
people to take those risks.
|11.3.05 @ 5:59PM|#
fyodor,
"Well, it takes a bit for an eviction notice to take effect."
When the tenant is in the house, yes. When the tenant is already
locked out, as in this case, then no.
|11.3.05 @ 6:06PM|#
She should offer to pay the same rent as before, if not, find
another place. Obviously, it's not renting for $1300, otherwise,
somebody would be living there. This landlord is not only a prick,
but he seems to be an idiot.
Also, good try for the writer to make this a black/white issue.
Seems pretty much like a green issue to me.
fyodor|11.3.05 @ 6:25PM|#
When the tenant is already locked out, as in this case, then
no.
I don't think so. Or at least I would be very surprised. In fact, I
once checked on that regarding a roommate I wanted out pronto, and
I was told that if I locked the jerk out, he could get the police
to force me to let him back in. Anyway, why would it matter if you
happened to be in the house or not at the moment the eviction
process commences?
Also, you haven't answered my other question. What's your point?
Even if you think tenants should have greater legal protections
against eviction, unless you're against all evictions, we're both
in the same boat on this. The landlord can always find a reason to
evict someone and if the tenant feels it is an unjust eviction his
only choice is to fight it in court. Do you have a different view
of how the process should work?
|11.3.05 @ 7:10PM|#
I don't know all the facts. How do we know the lady is not a horrible tenant and the landlord finally has an excuse to evict? There are tons of reasons why the landlord may not be the prick. What money did she use to clean up and restore the property? Why didn't she use that to pay rent and demand the landlord to clean up? Something is not right about the story.
|11.4.05 @ 12:46AM|#
yadda yadda yah...I'm tired of hearing about New Orleans and the BS 250 Billion we're going to pay as taxpayers to rebuild the Katrina damage..
|11.4.05 @ 2:29AM|#
Favors should never, ever be expected if they aren't stipulated in an agreement. Admittedly, the guy is a jerk for not doing the favor, but he had no supposed moral obligation to this woman outside of his word, symbolized by the contract.
Paul Rako|11.4.05 @ 4:04AM|#
"whatever happened to property rights? some of you are on the
wrong website."
What ever happened to 500 years of civil and common-law contract
jurisprudence? Please don't think reading Atlas Shrugged makes it
OK to act like a selfish pig. Renting has both explicit and implied
contractual obligations on both parties. Decent civilized societies
find it a little disharmonious conflict hell-ride to toss single
moms out into the street so some landed-gentry types can make a
little more filthy lucre. What eventually happens is those pesky
peons get really upset and send all your pretty girls to the
guillotine.
What ever happened to property rights? What ever happened to some
6-foot 5-inch big buck black man kicking the living tar out of some
landlord that put his sister in the street? Get real man.
Images
by Tyrone Greene
Performed by Eddie Murphy (SNL)
Dark and lonely on a summer's night
Kill my landlord
Kill my landlord
Watchdog barking
Do he bite?
Kill my landlord
Kill my landlord
Slip in his window
Break his neck
Then his house
I start to wreck
Got no reason
What the heck
Kill my Landlord
Kill my landlord
C-I-L-L
my l a n d l o r d
http://bettersoft.deadbeatclub.com/nate4.htm
|11.4.05 @ 5:12AM|#
I think Lost In Translation is right on two counts.
A mandatory/Government-enforced evacuation must have some legal
bearing on whether or not the apartment was "inhabitable" at the
time. It doesn't really matter if it flooded or not, it was
ostensibly against the law to be there at the time. Any lawyers out
there care to comment?
Secondly, L.I.T. makes the ever so uncomfortable point that we're
all rushing to ignore: Maybe it's not such a good idea to rebulid
New Orleans. Or at least to rebuild it as it was before. This could
all happen again next year, or next week for that matter; we're
apparently not quite out of hurricane season yet. If the
federal/state/local governments are not going to undertake some
sort of massive re-engineering project, how is this any different
than rebuilding sandcastles as the waves wash them away again and
again? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't even see the major
media asking if anything like that is in the works. They shouldn't
bother to fix a single broken window until the underlying problem
is dealt with. I don't appreciate my tax money being wasted in a
colossal game of Russian roulette.
|11.4.05 @ 5:59AM|#
The landlord is an immoral, opportunistic dickhead. But the law allows for such. Sadly, a community like New Orleans is too large for the social penalties of being an immoral, opportunistic dickhead to have much of an effect.
|11.4.05 @ 7:50AM|#
The landlord should have the right to evict, but under the terms
of the contract he must give notice. The clock should start ticking
on the notice period when the tenant is no longer blocked from the
property by floods, cops, etc. Starting the clock ticking before
that is clearly wrong.
And with all of the people deciding not to move back to NO, the
jerk might soon regret his decision to evict. Indeed, if the clock
starts ticking when the tenant returns, and then no new tenant
shows interest, and the evicted tenant says "Hey, good news! I
found a cheaper place already!" the landlord might be kicking
himself.
I know that the "you can always move elsewhere" argument is usually
easier said than done. But this is one case where the shortage of
people in NO most definitely DOES favor tenants, and they should
use that market power to teach these jerks a lesson. They should
also call the cops on anybody who started the clock ticking before
they could return to the property to receive the notice.
|11.4.05 @ 8:12AM|#
I think Dave and thoreau have made a crucial point. The gov't
has in effect made it illegal for the tenant to receive the
eviction notice. Could it be legal for the landlord to, in effect,
require the tenant to break the law?
Of course, the fact that I had to say "in effect" twice means the
landlord might have some wriggle room.
|11.4.05 @ 9:43AM|#
fyodor, "What's your point?"
I don't have one. I'm establishing facts. I like to handle issues
forwards (drawing political conclusions from the facts at hand),
not backwards (deciding what must be the right political position,
then figuring out how the facts support it).
thoreau, that is eminently reasonable.
Creative Solutions Dep't|11.4.05 @ 9:43AM|#
I don't know why everyone is assuming the evictions would be
legal.
Speaking as a lawyer, I would like to take a look at the leases
involved. I appreciate that LA law, which presumably applies to
these contracts, is unusual, but what the contract says probably
still matters a lot. Is there a force majeure clause? Does it spell
out the tennant's remedies if the landlord breaches by not
providing a habitable apartment? Does the law of choice specified
in the leases include commonlaw concepts of unconscionability?
Etc., etc.
You all shouldn't be speculating that these kangaroo court
evictions (is the eviction official even reviewing the leases
involved?!?!?!?). Speaking to you as a libertarian, now, contract
law is quite central to our worldview. Don't shoot from the hip
when you haven't read the contract. Its disrespectful to the
contract.
Disclaimer: Additionally, the evicted tennants may have
extra-contractual federal, state and/or local statutory remedies,
but then that is just another reason *not* to assume that
everything is being done nice and legal here.
|11.4.05 @ 10:08AM|#
...good try for the writer to make this a black/white issue.
Seems pretty much like a green issue to me.
I live in New Orleans, Don, and let me tell you: everything here is
a black/white issue.
Landlords can get more money from renting to whites than to blacks,
but only if there aren't too many blacks in the neighborhood --
tipping points, you know. So Katrina is the perfect opportunity for
landlords to maximize the profit on their properties by evicting
black tenants.
|11.4.05 @ 10:21AM|#
I like to handle issues forwards (drawing political
conclusions from the facts at hand), not backwards (deciding what
must be the right political position, then figuring out how the
facts support it).
Since when?
|11.4.05 @ 10:42AM|#
you must be assuming that such reasoning can only lead to your preferred positions, anonymous troll. How sad for you that your brain functions so poorly.
|11.4.05 @ 11:27AM|#
How sad for you that your brain functions so
poorly.
Oh boy. I just started reading this thread and already it looks
like it's degenerated.
|11.4.05 @ 12:05PM|#
You're supposed to start at the top.
You are?
I was wondering why I'm always the first poster...
|11.4.05 @ 12:55PM|#
joe,
I like to handle issues forwards (drawing political conclusions
from the facts at hand), not backwards (deciding what must be the
right political position, then figuring out how the facts support
it).
Which is why your position on any issue is so utterly predictable.
Honestly, on any subject here on this blog we know how you are
going to come out from minute one. You are predictable as Old
Faithful.
|11.4.05 @ 1:25PM|#
KC, never attribute to malice that which can be explained by gross incompetency.
nofollow breaks blogs, part 2|11.4.05 @ 2:58PM|#
Whatever the cause, and I'm guessing it's partly due to
incompetency and partly due to "free" market "thinking", the point
is that what the Bush administration is doing and failing to do
will end up biting the GOP for decades.
Yes, that's right: what one of the most corrupt administrations is
doing now will be used against the GOP for decades.
|11.4.05 @ 6:06PM|#
I do have to admire the shoutout to the Specials in the headline. That song pops into my head every time I've seen it...
fyodor|11.7.05 @ 11:33AM|#
The landlord should have the right to evict, but under the
terms of the contract he must give notice. The clock should start
ticking on the notice period when the tenant is no longer blocked
from the property by floods, cops, etc.
A landlord friend once asked me to go with him to the house of
tenants he wanted to evict. The purpose was to witness him
serving the eviction notice. Since such a service cannot be
performed until the tenant is found, which is most likely after
they get back, such laws as you suggested already are in force, at
least in some places.
"What's your point?" I don't have one. I'm establishing
facts.
Blah blah blah. Well I do have a point. It's a difficult
situation but as much as you want to wring your hands and call
others insensitve, you can't come up with any solution either.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245