It's hard to believe you guys put up with all this federal meddling in rental housing.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but all the stories being recited about landlords being burdened are because of local ordinances, no?
I agree with your well-written assessment of the situation, that the legal owner bears the legal responsibilities to see that his lawful property is nuisance-free. Certainly a crack house next door constitutes a very big nuisance, which infringes upon the unalienable rights of the neighbors to pursue happiness, being bummed about seeing the needless suffering next door.
The article makes mention of two other points being largely overlooked by those who allege some nefarious scheme to defraud owners of their property:
- 1. The county official said the owner has a freewill CHOICE in the matter. Either "clean up or face seizure ..." Being called upon to live up to your personal responsibilities to the wider community in which you live or do business in should not be a very big issue at all.
- 2. The county official "advised" that "repeated drug problem" nuisances could prompt lawsuits and seizures. Hence this will be no sudden and sneaky surprise when after repeated complaints the responsible party refuses to or can't live up to their responsibilities, then actions will have to be taken.
The landlord's right to be irresponsible is trumped by the harm his commissions or omissions cause to others.