Landlords demand rent on flooded Houston homes
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
Then all their assets should be seized under RICO.
If they won't fix it up so that humans can safely live there, then they can't be allowed to charge rents on it.
But maybe that's just me.
However, there's not a provision for living rent-free; only lease termination or rent-reduction.
Flood insurance is hard because flood plain data is notoriously inaccurate. We would need to require everyone to buy flood insurance.
"Water Damage From Hurricane Harvey Extended Far Beyond Flood Zones"
"About 40 percent of the buildings estimated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to have been flooded in Harris County, Tex., are in areas considered to be “of minimal flood hazard.”
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/09/01/us/houston-da...
Take a mental snapshot of that emotion. It's what drives all vindictive (versus harm reducing) policy making. Understanding it will bring you clarity in discussions around drug use penalties and other debates.
This "lock the people up I dont agree with" is called fascist attitude.
So something like:
> ...if a rental premises is “totally unusable” due to an external disaster then either the landlord or tenant can terminate the lease through written notice. But if the property is “partially unusable” because of a disaster, a tenant may only get a reduction in rent determined by a county or district court.
...? Because that's the current situation under the Texas property code according to the article.
Where it will get tricky is the legal distinctions of what usable means in this context. An apartment that is fine but has no working plumbing or power? A house that's fine except for the floors and carpets? Are the tenants storing things there? Can the property owner exercise their ownership rights by having parties or renting the place to the red cross or by kicking off a renovation?
These issues impact both sides of the agreement... Paying money secures rights for tenants/leasers. For every sad story about someone who can't pay their rent right now I bet we could put together bad legislation to make a hundred sad stories about people who lost their rentals and property because of market conditions favored them being kicked out during a flooding episode.
Floods and other natural disasters tend to sneak past most common insurance coverage...
Regardless, the underlying demands for payment, and to what extent, as posited by OP and detailed by the local laws, are not addressed by insurance alone.
Perfectly reasonable in my opinion. In fact my rental agreement has a similar clause which gives tenant 30 days to vacate and find another place OR I can provide 30 days of another accommodation for "Free" and then fix the place in those 30 days.
Both landlords and tenants are perfectly normal human beings with compassion and all that. They are not evil people. I was only triggered by "arrest these people" comments which in my opinion do not belong on a civilized forum like HN.
If they want, they can get insurance to cover the mortgage.
A stupid analogy would be going to a shop to get ice cream, but they ran out of ice cream since it's a hot day. But you still get charged because the shopkeeper still has to pay his mortgage.
Mortgage != rent.
That's 100% incorrect. It depends on the terms of the lease and the applicable laws.
Here's why you shouldn't have to be charging those renters: you have the appropriate insurances in place, and the appropriate amount of cash in the bank to cover a couple months of float. If you don't have those things, then you're just doing it wrong and you're trying to get SOMEONE ELSE to cover your own mistakes.
Anecdote: I was 25 and had my first rental house. Neighbors house burned to the ground, doing a bit of damage to mine and causing a ton of smoke damage. It was tight the first month, second month was fine, third month I had more cash than if nothing had happened at all- I actually came out ahead.
I believe someone who would charge rent in this situation is immoral and uncharitable. They've sent clear signals that either they value money over people, they don't care to help others when they can, and/or they're selfish. I want no part of that person.
Texas tenant/landlord property rights After serving you notice of the damage (not caused by them and thus your responsibility under Texas law), either by certified mail or 2x hand delivered copies, your tenant can take you to justice court where the court can reduce your tenant's rent for the loss of value and use of the rental unit [what do you think a flooded house is worth in the rental market?], or require you to pay back a month of rent and $500, or award the tenant the amount of actual damages, court costs, and attorney fees.
So, I think you could have a little more humanity, and realize your tenants are also dealing with a nightmare and potentially strapped for cash; or you can be a self-centered asshole and have your tenants and the court system ream you for it.
But you and the rest of HN should be; every time I read arguments about NIMBYism, housing stock availability, etc, this train of thought is why people don't want to be a landlord, want to buy and hold their property, and don't want to allow more housing to be built to protect their property values.
If being a landlord is financially precarious, investors will simply buy and hold, and there is never going to be enough political will to force them to rent nor to force their hand through a land tax.
> So, I think you could have a little more humanity, and realize your tenants are also dealing with a nightmare and potentially strapped for cash; or you can be a self-centered asshole and have your tenants and the court system ream you for it.
Agreed. This is what insurance is for.
Disclaimer: Landlord, but with insurance to cover loss of rent if disaster strikes.
As this unfolds, I would be interested to see analysis of how rental property ownership breaks down in the affected area.
And to the extent it is large property and financial institutions that are impacted, my sympathy is going to be rather low.
They took advantage of the economic crisis -- one the big banks engendered -- to profit off of financially distressed mortgage holders. Now, they find themselves in a situation where they feel squeezed due to their own distress, in this case caused by a natural weather event -- and a lot of poor planning with manifold causes, of some of which they are probably complicit (holding their immediate, short-term expenses down).
As for "smaller" landlords, they have bills to pay, too -- to such large institutions. This is where "the government" steps in and sets rules -- or at least guidelines -- for how to proceed, what is and isn't permissible, and what grace periods and conditions should apply -- including terms and compensatory actions that allow the large institutions to manage, albeit perhaps with a manageable "haircut" of sorts. So that landlords are caught in the middle of a financial squeeze, themselves.
But yeah, insisting a renter cough up rent for a property they cannot use as the result of an "act of god"? Well, you have to ask yourself: Just whom should that "act" affect?