That is ridiculous. A lot of us are middle class people who have rented our house and we have to pay mortgage. It makes perfect sense to demand rent for the month.
This "lock the people up I dont agree with" is called fascist attitude.
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.
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.
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.
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.