This is one of those issues where I just can’t weigh in with a definite opinion.
I once lived next door to a couple who was always fighting. It could be one o’clock in the afternoon or one o’clock at night, and the two of them would be going at it. The walls were thin and we could hear everything. Every punch, scream, shove, and fall. The fighting would spill out into the hallway, and the woman would scream things like “someone call the police!” There was always the fear that if we intervened somehow, the wrath would be turned on us. And what if there was a gun involved? Those thin walls offered no protection against stray bullets. What made it awkward was that the guy was the building super. A surprisingly soft-spoken, helpful guy. It was always weird calling on him to fix something right after one of his battle royales (he’d always be full of apologies too).
It made for a very unpleasant existence. As selfish as it sounds, it is just no fun living next to a violent psychodrama.
But if you are a victim, do you really need the hardship of homelessness?
No, of course not. But why should other people have to suffer due to your inability to get help? I think neighbors should care about one another, but it is unreasonable to expect strangers to put up with violence. Sometimes there are clear-cut victims, and sometimes both parties are giving just as good as they are getting. Neighbors just want some peace and quiet, dammit. They aren’t social workers.
So I say the solution is to make sure social services are well-funded. As long as shelters are in place to help people when they hit rock-bottom, eviction is not the worse thing in the world.
As for land lord action, why should we be concerned with charges? Repetitive police calls is part and parcel of denying other tenants quiet enjoyment of their homes. There is no valid reason to continually call the police to the same residence to deal with the same abusive man, if a woman is choosing to remain in a situation like that it is tragic and she needs help–but that’s the role of social workers and not land lords, whose role is to provide shelter in exchange for money and to do so in a manner pleasing to the greatest number of their customers.
I don’t like this ordinance though, because I don’t see why the city should interject itself in the business relationship between landlord and tenant. So I fully support the eviction, but do not support an ordinance forcing a land lord to evict. It’s an appropriate area for individual discretion on part of the property owner and not really a great thing to regulate by ordinance.
I want to state now that I know almost nothing about the case in this thread, I didn’t pop into this thread to discuss the case, just to state the general concept that it’s reasonable to evict someone if a lot of disturbances happen over and over again in their unit–regardless of the cause after a certain point.
I don’t know the specifics of this situation, how many time people were called or etc. But let me ask you this, if you have a woman who regularly gets beaten by her boyfriend after a 30-40 minute shouting match and the police keep getting called to break it up and she keeps refusing to press charges–at what point is it reasonable for both the rest of the tenants to want her gone and the land lord to listen to their complaints? Never? So it’s your claim if someone continually consents to have an abuser back in their residence and refuses to ever press charges, the rest of the tenants should just accept that they (and possibly their children) will be exposed to screaming, fighting, and police calls indefinitely or until they themselves move out?
What if the domestic violence is so loud and frequent that both units beside the victim’s, and the ones above and below, become unrentable? Should a land lord just have to accept a situation where four other units are kept vacant just because the person who is consenting to the presence of an abuser in their lives happens to be a victim themselves? There is a difference in domestic violence between “blaming the victim” and recognizing, “unfortunately in this case the victim is not willing or able to be helped, and it will just destroy our lives to try.”
If you’ve ever dealt with a serious addict, it’s often the same thing. They are in a bad situation they can’t really fix for themselves right at that moment, but if you don’t eventually just wash your hands of the addict they will destroy your lives too. I’ve tried to intercede in the past on behalf of a family member that was repeatedly the victim of domestic abuse, it ended badly for me in terms of familial arguments, individuals trying (unsuccessfully) to have me prosecuted for crimes and etc. I don’t believe victims of domestic violence can be “rescued”, I think they can be helped to safety and protected but only if they are willing–and sadly they aren’t always willing. In that case you have to ask yourself if you have to go down with them out of some desire to never do anything that might recognize the fact that the victim’s own victimization is hurting other people.
Because I agree the law is bad, I just felt there was a theme of rejecting the concept of ever evicting a domestic violence victim just because they are a victim. That’s what I wanted to address, not the law which I already said inappropriately interferes in the landlord-tenant business relationship.
The law penalizes landlords who do not evict. That does not allow the landlord to use his or her judgement regarding the situation, and pushes tenants into a situation where they will absolutely not call the police no matter what is happening. That isn’t good for anybody.
You mention the “general concept that it’s reasonable to evict someone if a lot of disturbances happen over and over again in their unit–regardless of the cause after a certain point.” What if these disturbances have nothing to do with domestic violence? Perhaps someone needs an ambulance frequently for a period of time because of a recurring health problem. Should they be kicked out because ambulances are loud and annoying?
In the case you describe, the landlord should have the abuser trespassed and state that HE may not return to the property. Where I live, the victim gets no real say in whether the abuser is arrested and need not press charges. Repeated offenses will get the abuser legally banned from contact with the victim, regardless of the victim’s desires. Making the victim homeless or discouraging summoning the police is thus completely unnecessary.
I would fear legal consequences in evicting someone who repeatedly had to go to the hospital. Not the same situation at all as someone who invites an abuser repeatedly into their lives and does nothing to stop it long term.
In cases where the abuser was not legally allowed to be near the victim, and where the victim was not consenting to the presence of the abuser then I would make sure the abuser (who would be legally trespassing on my property) be prosecuted for trespass at every opportunity. If we had a repeated trespass problem we would also station security at the site for an extended period of time as well.
But that’s sadly not all that common a scenario in domestic violence. I doubt anyone has statistics, but while it certainly happens that women trying to flee domestic violence have a man trespass/follow them repeatedly, it’s far more often the case the woman is in fact cohabiting with the abuser and in fact is not willing to deny them access to the home in the first place. Meaning in the vast majority of cases a land lord would have to deal with two people living together who will not stop disturbing other tenants and neither person is willing to leave nor is either person willing to do any of the legal work necessary to have the other person legally kicked out or prohibited from contact.
I should note I do not really have a landlord tenant relationship with residential tenants. I’m a partner in a real estate development firm that mostly focuses on commercial real estate. We generally only want businesses as tenants. The residential business is a legacy from before my time and has mostly been sold off. Before I was involved in this business residential projects were intended to result in sales of condominiums and our firm would eventually own none of the units in a development and the condo board would be fully responsible for everything.
Where we are still in residential rentals it is where condos were unable to be sold and we’ve not found a property management company to do the property management for us at agreeable terms.
You say you would “fear legal consequences in evicting someone who repeatedly had to go to the hospital”? So the only reason you would not render a seriously ill person homeless is fear of the legal consequences of doing so? Wow. Do you consider yourself a sociopath?
You sure “know” a lot about what goes on in the world in spite of lacking any statistics. Where do you get this “knowledge”? Maybe society can stop trying to collect data and we can all just turn to YOU to figure out what’s happening in the world. Don’t worry, no one will expect you to provide this service out of compassion; you will be compensated fairly and legally.
It’s a terrible analogy in any case. No one goes to the hospital every night or calls an ambulance every night. I’ve lived near domestic violence situations, and they can and do scream and fight every single night, the cops being called are not the problem. The problem is every other night when the cops aren’t called + the nights where the cops are called.
Who cares? I don’t care if it’s 1% of 99%, a couple that lives together and fights every night should not be allowed to remain in a rental situation destroying quality of life for the other tenants. Period. Everything else in this thread is about issues I do not care about whatsoever and do not care to discuss. It’s not my problem or my concern if some idiot woman got screwed by a bad law.
If you don’t want to discuss the subject matter of this thread, why don’t you stop posting in this thread? Because it really does make you look like a huge, stupid tool.
The fact that you by all other evidences clearly are a complete greasy nutsack doesn’t help, of course.
The subject matter of the thread is, “whiny little bitches complain because someone thinks annoying domestic violence disturbances should be allowed to go on forever with no intercession from neighbors in a rental property situation.”
Note:
If you guys just wanted to talk about a bad law and cry about it like people on this forum normally do, I’d have never posted. But instead you have a bunch of morons making the argument that if you support evicting a victim of domestic abuse because of all the drama and noise disturbances her presence causes you are “victim blaming” or are somehow wrong. I love when people run all over the place with a thread, then when their argument seeps into the realm of the stupid and easily dismissible they cry like little children when someone points it out and scream, “that isn’t the topic of the thread!!!”
Thanks for the summary. What I totally do not understand is how someone can get arrested for assault and aggravated assault three times, which appear to be just within a few weeks, and be let out of jail each time. Does the case discuss how this guy got out of jail? Did he get bailed out each time, or were charges dropped? The guy seems like a sociopath and it just boggles my mind that a judge would allow him back on the streets with that record
Let it be henceforth known that Martin Hyde is a worthless fart machine and has no thoughts that could possibly of interest or of use to anyone, ever, with the possible exception of researchers studying neuropathologies exhibited by early-onset dementia sufferers.
Look, it’s great that all of you people wringing your hands in concern get to live in detached single-family suburban homes where you couldn’t hear your neighbors screaming bloody murder if you wanted to. For the rest of us, you know what good it does to keep me up all night because a couple of alcoholics are getting into it with each other? None. It doesn’t help the victims of domestic violence for uninvolved third parties to suffer as a result of their refusal to accept help. There are no magic hope-rays that will fix things just by wishing that negative externalities weren’t a thing. These people are going to be in their cycle of drama forever; it can be contained to them by not letting them interfere in the lives of the sane, or it can be allowed to become everyone’s problem. Why you think someone is somehow benefitting from the latter option is beyond me.
Are you the only person in the world who lives in an apartment, Condescending Robot? Is there a documentary or book where I can learn more about your unique lifestyle?