Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Gainzo, Jan 4, 2013.
Good Stuff.. but on a national level, Congress failed to pass the national violence against women act.. more failure by these elected officials.
Violence protections should be extended to all women, not just some...
US House votes not to reauthorise domestic violence funding bill | World news | guardian.co.uk
I hadn't read about that. I think that's a good law. Many people are living in retraumatizing situations, and survivors of domestic violence often need new addresses to make it more difficult for their perpetrators to find them. Of course, the big limitation of this law is that many of these survivors do not have the money to move or cannot find other housing. For low income individuals, housing is very hard to come by at least in the Boston area.
As long as the tenant who is a victim of abuse pays for the repairs to the apartment, I'm OK with it. I'm a landlord and would have no problem changing the locks to help a tenant remain safe, but there's no way in hell I should be paying to fix a broken door or a hole in the wall because a woman (or man, for that matter) decided to "try to work things out" with a violent a-hole. That's their decision and they should be responsible for their poor judgement. Of course, as a human being, I'd fix the place up after the first incident, but after that, forget it. You also have to fix windows and entry doors, but that's a one-timer, too. They're getting a bill attached to the rent.
Of course anyone involved in an abusive relationship should be responsible to pay for any damage they incurr upon rental property. That should be understood.
For whatever reason, I've noticed landlords often don't require the old "First, last + security deposit" prior to renting any more. Why is that happening?
If I owned rental property, I'd do all I could NOT to rent to subsidized tennants. A buddy of mine stops considering anyone as soon as he sees gov't subsidies as a source of income.
Without getting into it over who should pay for the damages (I don't think the landlord should be responsible, either, but I am kind of unsure how the victim of the abuse is going to be able to pay for it, either) I'm curious about your statement "decided to work things out."
Do you really think that the majority of victims of the abuse invites the abuser into her home to "talk?"
It's been my experience (personal and professional) that, in most cases, the abuser shows up at the doorstep and kicks, punches or otherwise forces his way in.
I'm unsure that very many women agree to a meeting inside their home with no one else around when there's been previous violence and the abuser is no longer living in the home.
If they agree to meet and talk at all it's generally in a well populated and neutral location. For their own safety.
Again, from personal and ambulance experience, it doesn't matter how many restraining orders a woman has - if the guy shows up he can kick his way into your home before you even hang up with the 911 operator - and long before the police actually arrive at your door.
We had some poor woman who had gotten a restraining order on Monday afternoon and was on the phone with 911 on Tuesday morning saying he was beating on her door and the 911 tape has her entire murder recorded - it took about 2 1/2 minutes from "he's trying to kick the the door in," to the fatal gunshot.
Right....because they're the only ones who damage their rental homes.
THose are extreme examples and there's not much I can do about that as a landlord. I have a few experiences with this, but most of the time I find out about domestic violence with tenants after the third or fourth incident. No one seems to want to advertise that they're being abused the first time, and when kids are involved, it's about 50/50 that the couple will get back together and try to work things out. My sample size is small so the overall numbers are probably different.
BTW, in my experience, women are doing as much property damage as men are during fights and voilence. I realize that men are more voilent and dangerous still, but women do lots of damage these days and are frequently more dangerous as time goes by. Men just don't talk about it as much.
The nice thing about subsidized tenants is that they usually pay on time fully.. that is why it is often appealing to many people who own property.
Its just another way for the abuser to harass the victim.
Damage a door or window and the victim is forced to pay the bill for repairs.
It is, that's very true.
I'd also be willing to guess that much of the damage that's done is done by couple which are still together in many cases.
Someone loses his/her temper during an argument and puts a fist through a wall or throws a chair through a window and it ends up unrepaired when they move out.
This bill would not address those issues, however, nor should it - but I fear that "damage done" is being added to a few people's responses here when it comes to who they would and would not rent to.
And believe me, family arguments with property damage are NOT restricted to people who receive "government assistance." Nor are they the only people who move out of an apartment without making or paying for repairs.
Separate names with a comma.