Oregon has a zero-tolerance policy that allows the eviction of the entire household after a domestic assault. A woman recently got a restraining order against her husband after he abused her, including badly injuring her face and was promptly evicted.
How can they? They say it is to protect others from witnessing domestic violence. She did her best to keep him away from her by getting a restraining order, and they kick her out? Does anyone think this is a good policy?
Dude, this is really fucked up right here.
Another case of encouraging those most in the need of help to stay quiet and accept their fate.
I’ve been trying to think of arguments in favour of the policy, but I’ve really no idea.
pan
Well, in general I think zero-tolerance policies should really be called “zero-intelligence” policies. But that’s just my opinion.
It’s not very kind or compassionate, but it does make some sense in terms of business. You’ll conceivably have less noise, fewer repairs will have to be made on that particular apartment, you’ll retain your other (read: good) tenants longer, etc.
Personally, I think a nicer policy would be to include a “refrain from violent behavior” clause in the lease, have all adult tenants sign it, then prosecute him for breach of contract and have him evicted.
As for non-residents (boyfriends or what have you), can any law-savvy types comment on the viability of a vandalism or destruction-of-property type suit?
I would, but I’m not sure what you mean. What sort of circumstances are you talking about? I.e., who’s suing who and for what?
If the aggressor, if you will, is not a resident of the apartment and, therefore, not on the lease, could the apartment owner bring a successful suit against the aggressor? I’m thinking charges of vandalism or destruction of property, but perhaps other charges would apply?
Vandalism is a criminal charge. Assuming the apartment itself is damaged, and not just the tenant’s personal property, the landlord could file a criminal complaint and then it would be up to the police and prosecutors to decide what to do. As for recovering for property damage to the apartment, that’s just a straightforward tort suit. Depending on the amount of damage and the pockets of the defendant, it may or may not be worth pursuing, but the landlord would certainly be able to sue.
And now back to your regularly-scheduled “Boy, is Oregon messed up or what?” thread.
Why should I as a landlord have to keep a tenant who has friends that come over and become violent? How can I be required to continue renting to this person?
If you live in my house and your pals come over and regularly beat you up, you are going to be evicted. Putting the abusive pal in jail is no help, since you are just going to get another abusive pal. That is the way these relationships work. Hey, I’m sorry you are so messed up that you continue to hook up with abusive people, but why should I have to suffer because of it?
**
Your link didn’t go directly to the article. Was her husband listed on the lease or otherwise a resident at the property? If so then I think they are well within their rights to evict her.
I can understand her point of view. If I were renting an apartment and the neighbor beat on his wife while I was trying to sleep I’d find it very difficult to get to sleep. And after calling the police 3-4 times and still have it happen on a regular basis can get quite annoying.
Marc
That’s a bit of a gross generalization. Whatever happened to basing each person on individual merit? Supergirlfriend was married to a guy who used to beat her (never in the face, though…he didn’t want others to see his handywork). Now that she and I are together, does that mean that I am doomed to beat her as well? According to your example, I am. Never mind that I’ve never hit any girl I’ve ever dated, and don’t feel that I could even in self-defense. But now I have to call her and tell her that I’m doomed to start beating her.
Zero Tolerance. That means no exceptions and no basing it on actual circumstances. Lemur seems to have the spirit of Zero Tolerance down pat.
I understand the concept of Zero Tolerance. The question was posed in reference to that. I’ve always been against most Zero Tolerance policies, because no is ever given a chance to change their behavior or set of circumstances (and not just because I’m a Bobby Knight fan).
This is RFU, as kabbes said. And suffering in silence would not have worked either, because the neighbors would hear them, and they would not be silent.
Most victims of abuse do not permanently leave their abusers. They are in the cycle of abuse, beat up, leave, abuser sorry, they take his sorry ass back, rinse repeat. Alot of women in safe houses are there because their man is in prison and they need a place to stay and will be returning to him when he gets out.
The only way an abuser can be cured is if he gets help when he first starts abusing. If a person has been an abuser for awhile, there is NO cure.
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/news/oregonian/lc_42evict11.frame
The article above does not mention if the assault happened more than once or if this was an ongoing problem. The landlord may have just got fed up with the situation and used the law to her and eventually him out.
The problem with the law, though, is that it does not take into account the possibility of a victim actually trying to break the cycle but like it was written solely for the benefit of the landlord. So therefore the law is flawed and should be amended.
My opinion though is that the lady should have moved anyway, not left a forwarding address, and filed immediately for divorce. There are alot of program to help abused women with housing and living expenses. And if you read at the bottom of the article it sounds like she at least did the first part so in a way it was serendipitous what happened.
Every lease I’ve ever seen holds the tenant responsible for any damages of their guests or invitees.
Hmm… I think the important thing to note is that it says “allows eviction”, not “requires eviction”.
I think it’s probably a poor decision, but the management does have the right to evict someone if they break the rules established for renting there.
If it’s as clear-cut as the news stories seem to put it, it’s definatly a bad decision on the part of the management… But a completely legal one. If this was a recurring event, then it’s a reasonable action. If it was a one-time event (Especially since she obtained a restraining order against him), then it’s rather untolarant, and generally bad…
Right, but it was a question of theory. I was more interested in whether or not it could be done that way than whether or not it would be.