The latest news of a restraining order against New England Patriots player Randy Moss serves as an example of a temporary restraining order and how easy it is to get. Two bills at the State House (S.755 and H.1241) would make it easier than a temporary restraining order for alleged battered women (or men) to get special housing rights -- including protection against eviction. Under either of these bills, the person seeking special housing rights merely tells any one of a number of designated people (social worker, advocate in a domestic violence center, etc.) that they are a victim of domestic violence and sign a piece of paper. That gets them the rights that easily, based solely on the alleged victim's word. With protection against eviction, the alleged victim of domestic violence can continue engaging with their partner in the domestic violence -- late-night loud fights, property damage, etc. -- without fear of eviction, leaving landlords helpless to do anything about it.
These domestic violence bills introduce a form of "just cause" eviction, as the owner must prove that the reason for any eviction is not related to domestic violence. We do not have "just cause" eviction in Massachusetts, but this bill would start it. With "just cause" eviction comes a form of rent control. If you can't evict for a reason that might be related to domestic violence and you raise the rent too high, a judge may say you are evicting the tenant by imposing an unreasonable rent increase. That is rent control.
For more information, go to www.spoa.com and scroll down the home page to "Special housing rights for 'battered women'?" The state legislators that need to be contacted are:
Representative Kevin Honan
Co-Chair, Housing Committee
State House, Room 38
Boston, MA 02133
617-722-2470
Rep.KevinHonan@hou.state.ma.us
Senator Susan Tucker
Co-Chair, Housing Committee
State House, Room 424
Boston, MA 02133
617-722-1612
Susan.Tucker@state.ma.us
And you need to contact your own senator and rep. Follow this link to find out who they are:
www.wheredoivotema.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I have rented in Cambridge for 30 years, never missed a rent payment, and always improved the property at my own cost. I don't know how I came across your current newsletter, but I read it and felt compelled to contact you, even though I work approximately 60 hours a week and so have little time for such matters. Your entire newsletter is so one sided. I wonder if it might not be valuable to at least have one article from a renter, at least to bring some balance to your complete one-sided vision of reality. This kind of dialogue might lead to laws that are are also more balanced -- that keep in mind the needs of small property owners as well as the needs of tenants. When it comes to domestic violence, there is plenty of research showing that stable housing for women is the number one indicator to turn the situation around. The most successful programs throughout this country and worldwide prove it. I understand your vulnerability as a property owner. I hope it helps you understand that domestic violence makes human beings very, very vulnerable too. There has to be a middle path. The one you propose protects you without regard to tenants.
It hurts tenants when they don’t pay the rent that is owed. They end up with bad credit ratings which makes it hard for them to find new housing. And if enough tenants paid no rent long enough, it would become a threat to our society’s housing infrastructure. And it’s our housing infrastructure that gives us shelter by protecting us from the elements. Enough lost housing would create a housing shortage – something that’s ultimately bad for tenant and landlord alike. It’s wrong to translate all the issues involved in maintaining our housing infrastructure into a petty little landlord-tenant dispute – as if landlords and tenants were locked in a mortal conflict of interest. Landlords and all responsible property owners help to maintain our housing infrastructure. And when bills are proposed that would stop us from protecting our little piece of the infrastructure, there’s nothing in the world wrong with us opposing them. We are not against helping victims of domestic violence. But when a domestic violence law would stop us from evicting a tenant who is committing the crime of domestic violence, damaging our property, and bothering the rest of our tenants, it stops us from protecting our businesses, our livelihoods and everybody’s housing infrastructure as well. You cannot stop human beings who feel threatened from doing what they must do to protect themselves.
I think that in order for the government to impose such legislation, they should also ensure that the landlords are paid the rent that is due. While the idea is great that victems of domestic violence need stability to get on thier feet, it is ridiculous if it comes at the expense of the stability of another innocent party, the landlord.
Post a Comment