You're viewing a single thread.
My neighbor just realized he rented out his house to a guy who is under investigation for multiple murders. He found out when cops kept showing up looking to question him and the neighbors called to notify him. I simply googled his tenant's name and all the news stories, criminal records and mug shots came up, so I guess the landlord was just a dumbass.
Do you think someone thats "under investigation" deserves to be homeless?
Look up "crime free housing" it's disgusting. It's a way to have landlords evict the entire household based on an arrest. The main website
http://www.crime-free-association.org/about_crime_free.htm
Is an absolute fever dream of nonsense. The guy who pioneered the idea needs to be locked away.
Not only is it a sick idea, it makes no sense. If someone is really dangerous, then they will go to prison after they are tried and convinced. Why should everyone in their home get evicted because of them?
Thanks for the info. Its crazy to me how many people regularly completely disregard the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" like its not one of the, if not THE most important thing in our legal system.
Innocent until proven guilty only applies to the government unless there are specific protections in place. The court of public opinion still exists. Fortunately my state updated their human rights act to prevent this kind of thing in regards to housing.
Because that person is a vindictive sadist who enjoys causing suffering.
I'm pretty sure it's just a way to run minorities and other undesirables out of town. Arrest them on bogus or trumped up bullshit and then they get evicted even if they're found not guilty or the charges are dropped.
That's what I said.
Well, shit, another reason I'm glad I live in California (even though it's so fucking expensive).
Well if the guy is guilty then the landlord will just have to rent it out again. Also probably be able to keep the security deposit since if the guy goes to prison he violated his lease.
In some states, it is illegal to keep the security deposit unless there's been actual damage beyond normal wear-and-tear. The landlord would have to sue and would only be able to claim actual losses. Know your rights.
Unfortunately the landlord already has the money, so you have to sue to get it back. Even with a win, you may have to sell the debt to a collection agency to see any of it ever again.
Yeah, that’s exactly what a smart landlord would do, try and screw over someone who is being investigated for murder. No way that could go wrong.
Are there really states where the security deposit is not able to be used for unpaid rent or other unpaid fees?
Maybe I'm misremembering :(
Or don't, landlords need to be royally fucked at every corner