Meet the Spy Tech Companies Helping Landlords Evict People (vice.com) 263
schwit1 shares an excerpt from a Motherboard article: Some renters may savor the convenience of "smart home" technologies like keyless entry and internet-connected doorbell cameras. But tech companies are increasingly selling these solutions to landlords for a more nefarious purpose: spying on tenants in order to evict them or raise their rent. "You CAN raise rents in NYC!" reads the headline of one promotional email sent to landlords. It was a sales pitch from Teman, a tech company that makes surveillance systems for apartment buildings. Teman's sales pitch proposes a solution to a frustration for many New York City landlords, who have tenants living in older apartments that are protected by a myriad of rent control and stabilization laws. The company's email suggests a workaround: "3 Simple Steps to Re-Regulate a Unit." First, use one of Teman's automated products to catch a tenant breaking a law or violating their lease, such as by having unapproved subletters or loud parties. Then, "vacate" them and merge their former apartment with one next door or above or below, creating a "new" unit that's not eligible for rent protections. "Combine a $950/mo studio and $1400/mo one-bedroom into a $4200/mo DEREGULATED two-bedroom," the email enticed. Teman's surveillance systems can even "help you identify which units are most-likely open to moving out (or being evicted!)." [...]
Erin McElroy, a professor of American Studies at the University of Texas at Austin who tracks eviction trends, also says that digital surveillance of residential buildings is increasing, particularly in New York City, which she calls the "landlord tech epicenter." Any camera system can document possibly eviction-worthy behavior, but McElroy identified two companies, Teman and Reliant Safety, that use the biometrics of tenants with the explicit goal of facilitating evictions. These companies are part of an expanding industry known as "proptech," encompassing all the technology used for acquiring and managing real estate. A report by Future Market Insights predicts that proptech will quadruple its current value, becoming a $86.5 billion industry by 2023. It is also sprouting start-ups to ease all aspects of the business -- including the unsavory ones. [...]
Reliant Safety, which claims to watch over 20,000 apartment units nationwide, has a less colorful corporate pedigree. It is owned by the Omni Organization, a private developer founded in 2004 that "acquires, rehabilitates, builds and manages quality affordable housing throughout the United States," according to its website. The company claims it has acquired and managed more than 17,000 affordable housing units. Many of the properties it lists are in New York City. Omni's website features spotless apartment complexes under blue skies and boasts about sponsorship of after-school programs, food giveaways, and homeless transition programs. Reliant's website features videos that depict various violations detected by its surveillance cameras. The website has a page of "Lease Violations" it says its system has detected, which include things such as "pet urination in hallway," "hallway fistfight," "improper mattress disposal," "tenant slips in hallway," as well as several alleged assaults, videos of fistfights in hallways, drug sales at doorways and break-ins through smashed windows. Almost all of them show Black or brown people and almost all are labeled as being from The Bronx -- where, in 2016, Omni opened a 140-unit affordable housing building at 655 Morris Avenue that boasted about "state-of-the-art facial recognition building access" running on ubiquitous cameras in common areas. Reliant presents these as "case studies" and lists outcomes that include arrest and eviction. Part of its package of services is "illegal sublet detection" using biometrics submitted by tenants to suss out anyone not authorized to be there. While Reliant claims its products are rooting out illegal and dangerous activity, the use of surveillance and biometrics to further extend policing into minority communities are a major cause for concern to privacy advocates.
Erin McElroy, a professor of American Studies at the University of Texas at Austin who tracks eviction trends, also says that digital surveillance of residential buildings is increasing, particularly in New York City, which she calls the "landlord tech epicenter." Any camera system can document possibly eviction-worthy behavior, but McElroy identified two companies, Teman and Reliant Safety, that use the biometrics of tenants with the explicit goal of facilitating evictions. These companies are part of an expanding industry known as "proptech," encompassing all the technology used for acquiring and managing real estate. A report by Future Market Insights predicts that proptech will quadruple its current value, becoming a $86.5 billion industry by 2023. It is also sprouting start-ups to ease all aspects of the business -- including the unsavory ones. [...]
Reliant Safety, which claims to watch over 20,000 apartment units nationwide, has a less colorful corporate pedigree. It is owned by the Omni Organization, a private developer founded in 2004 that "acquires, rehabilitates, builds and manages quality affordable housing throughout the United States," according to its website. The company claims it has acquired and managed more than 17,000 affordable housing units. Many of the properties it lists are in New York City. Omni's website features spotless apartment complexes under blue skies and boasts about sponsorship of after-school programs, food giveaways, and homeless transition programs. Reliant's website features videos that depict various violations detected by its surveillance cameras. The website has a page of "Lease Violations" it says its system has detected, which include things such as "pet urination in hallway," "hallway fistfight," "improper mattress disposal," "tenant slips in hallway," as well as several alleged assaults, videos of fistfights in hallways, drug sales at doorways and break-ins through smashed windows. Almost all of them show Black or brown people and almost all are labeled as being from The Bronx -- where, in 2016, Omni opened a 140-unit affordable housing building at 655 Morris Avenue that boasted about "state-of-the-art facial recognition building access" running on ubiquitous cameras in common areas. Reliant presents these as "case studies" and lists outcomes that include arrest and eviction. Part of its package of services is "illegal sublet detection" using biometrics submitted by tenants to suss out anyone not authorized to be there. While Reliant claims its products are rooting out illegal and dangerous activity, the use of surveillance and biometrics to further extend policing into minority communities are a major cause for concern to privacy advocates.
Scummy, all around (Score:5, Insightful)
On the one hand, this is very scummy behavior.
On the other hand, this is expected behavior after the government is scummy and attempts to "make rent affordable" in about the worst way possible, forming it as what is effectively a tax on specific landlords(by making it so they can't charge market rates). In addition, by making it so that landlords can't charge market rates, it lowers the value of being a landlord, fewer companies and people will invest in units, and you actually make the situation worse.
Re:Scummy, all around (Score:4, Insightful)
Wait, what's so scummy about trying to stop things like people pissing in the hallways and fistfighting? Those are literally the things listed as to what this monitoring is for, and I'm willing to bet that pretty much all tenants are against those things just as much if not more than the landlord.
The story even went full racist by both capitalizing "Black" and not capitalizing "brown" to make sure you know which racial group is deserving of this honor, and noting that most people who get prosecuted for things noted above belong to those two groups.
Re: (Score:2)
Prosecuted for criminal activity is different than getting evicted for contract violation.
I'm fine with prosecuting those who get into fights in the hallways, but doing it specifically to get evictions in order to raise rents, that's the scummy part.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with most of these sort of activities is that you have that one neighbour from hell and police don't give a crap because it's something minor.
Getting him out regardless of reasoning is something that everyone else in the building would like. There's nothing scummy about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like there is.
Of course, this is utterly irrelevant to the question being discussed, just as much as your past misdeeds in life are to your comment on this topic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you never had to live in a seedier part of town. People who want to throw other people for pissing in the corridors of fighting in them are people doing good things.
It's the people who piss in corridors and fight that are pieces of shit. They make it worse for everyone else in the building.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Scummy, all around (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who had shitty neighbors once, I genuinely don't give a single fuck what you assume motivation of the landlord to be. I just want the scumbag pissing in the corridor and fighting in the corridor gone. Preferably yesterday. He's causing pain and suffering to everyone in the building.
Re: (Score:2)
Europe is actually very diverse.
Re: (Score:3)
Garbage containers are outside the buildings where the garbage trucks can get them and people carry their trash there.
Only on the mornings when the garbage truck picks them up. The rest of the time they are in a dedicated room inside the building (or courtyard). And it's actually illegal to leave them out all the time, as this makes the image of the street unsightly.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Scummy, all around (Score:2)
It's way more scummy to limit prices to a reasonable level than it is to evict a family of 4 on the streets and quadruple the price for someone else? Because the family can sleep under the bridge, I guess?
Martin Shkreli has nothing on you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, what's so scummy about trying to stop things like people pissing in the hallways and fistfighting?
Wait. What? Where do you live?!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Scummy, all around (Score:5, Insightful)
Wages don't keep up with market rates, and then you retire. Rent controls are the only way to prevent a lot of people being made homeless.
Private landlords just have to accept the responsibility of owning someone else's home. If they don't like the responsibility, they should get out of the market.
Re: (Score:3)
Rent controls are a way to make *more* people homeless, because they drive down incentives to invest in new housing.
"Builders will only make x profit and not y profit, so they won't bother"
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Not when they can make z profit by investing elsewhere, with z>y.
There are more investment dollars than investments, which is why the wealthy are sitting on unprecedented cash reserves instead of investing more of their money.
it's not that hard to comprehend, even a democrat should be able to get it.
Whatever you are, you don't get what's going on because you're pretending things which are happening aren't.
Re: (Score:2)
And new housing will be rent controlled? Otherwise your argument is the usual absurd bs that landlords use to drive up prices.
Re:Scummy, all around (Score:5, Insightful)
"We need to make more money or we won't invest!" is how they manipulate you.
Fuck em. If they don't invest the price of land will fall and someone else will.
Re: (Score:2)
In NY it's probably largely down to there being very little available land.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if people can't afford to live in NYC, perhaps they should consider living somewhere else that is more affordable...lower overall cost of living.
The US is a VERY large country with lots of land and various economies.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have limited land it might be necessary as no extra developments might be possible. A lot of US cities are so dumbly constructed, they cant really expand making rent laws necessary, and the landlords knew of the laws when they invested in realestate, so don't come whining about things they knew about just because they want to make more money than they thought they could.
Make a bad rule... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Make a bad rule... (Score:4, Informative)
Rent control is still one of the dumbest ideas ever that is nothing more than a forced transfer of money from the 'wrong' group to the 'right' group... according to certain politicians.
The problem here is that there are no good solutions to this problem.
I've got a friend who lives on the very Morris Ave cited in the summary, albeit a few blocks over. I can't speak for the 655 building, but the one she's in looks like it hasn't gotten a fresh coat of paint or reflooring since the Nixon administration. There's no such thing as 'hot water' in her apartment unless she boils it; I'd let it run for five minutes and it was barely warmer than the last Jacuzzi I was in. Walls...weren't well insulated for sound.
Parking is utterly atrocious; only twice in three years have I found a parking space within three blocks of the building, meanwhile Morris Ave is impossible to drive down without feeling like you're threading a needle as you drive between double-parked cars. Anywhere else, the 2-bedroom apartment she's in would cost $1,000/month at best, based on its condition and quality-of-life. The average American household income in 2021 was $70,784 according to Google, so 1/3 of that would be about $1,900/month...but in that section of the Bronx, her rent is very likely the $4,000 quoted.
What, exactly, is the solution? You don't like rent control...fine, that's understandable, but the problem with the dynamic here is that landlords get to vote themselves raises in ways that regular employees cannot. I can't just go into my boss's office and say "my salary is now an additional $300/month" the same way my landlord can inform me that my rent is going up by $300/month. If rent control isn't the solution, and the free market runs into other issues with true competition (finite land, finite permits, transportation problems, etc.), and collective bargaining finds itself impractical due to the absence of leverage by tenants, the only other option is that 'living in NYC is a luxury afforded solely by the wealthy, regardless of whether you're in a Fifth Ave penthouse or a run down apartment building in the Bronx'. This works until working class people who collect the garbage and run the cable lines and cook the Chinese food and drive the taxis can't afford to live within a two hour commute of their job, and now the value of the apartments go down because there are no garbage collectors or linemen or waiters or cab drivers to facilitate living in that apartment.
Politicians gonna politician, you're right...but if the solution isn't rent control, I'm open to the alternative.
Re:Make a bad rule... (Score:5, Informative)
This works until working class people who collect the garbage and run the cable lines and cook the Chinese food and drive the taxis can't afford to live within a two hour commute of their job, and now the value of the apartments go down because there are no garbage collectors or linemen or waiters or cab drivers to facilitate living in that apartment.
Politicians gonna politician, you're right...but if the solution isn't rent control, I'm open to the alternative.
Isn't this how market self-regulates, though?
And the description above (building quality, parking, etc) is EXACTLY a rent control effect. Landlords can't raise the prices, therefore they don't maintain the building. It's crowded because it's cheap compared to how it should be.
Re: Make a bad rule... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, this is how the market self controls, but it first takes a decade or more to make life hell for ordinary people and then it messes up the city for decades afterwards.
I'm sure some Americans think that this is great ("free" market and all that as a principle, no matter who dies of it - just look at your health care). But realize that options for new housing are limited so the market isn't free: it's a monopoly. If you don't impose rent controls the price will be what the market will bear, and then it will collapse.
Once again, this argument goes for health care too. And it is a worthless argument just as much there as here.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I am no fan of the current crop of Florida Republicans but there was a time when this state was well-governed (and mostly by Republicans). Each entity (county/city/etc) must have a master plan that projects population growth and allows for the building of additional housing units in order to match that growth.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't just go into my boss's office and say "my salary is now an additional $300/month" the same way my landlord can inform me that my rent is going up by $300/month.
Yes you can. And your belief you can't is why your life sucks. It really is as easy as saying to your boss "I want $300 more or cya", exactly like your landlord can say "I want $300 more or bye-bye". Of course, both of you risk getting stuck with an asset that noone wants and which is not generating income (landlord's apartament, or your idle time) - so you both need to consider the question "are my assets really worth on the market $300 more than I'm getting right now". But the sooner you realize you both
Re: Make a bad rule... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What, exactly, is the solution? You don't like rent control...fine, that's understandable
It's understandable only by invoking greed and a total lack of concern for the wellbeing of any other human. As a basic human need, housing should not be a profit center any more than medicine.
Re: (Score:2)
Duh. (Score:2)
Film at eleven.
meow mow (Score:2)
Landlords are worse than tenants (Score:2)
How do you know that? (Score:3)
Got some actual data that landlords are worse than tenants? The media are dominated by people who rent or are owner occupiers, so have no little experience of bad tenants. So they focus on what they know and ignore the travails of being a landlord.
Re:How do you know that? (Score:5, Interesting)
Being a landlord is like any other job. You don't get to just sit back and collect money, you have to DO something in exchange. For landlords, this means maintaining the property and common areas, and performing routine upkeep.
I was an owner of one apartment in a building of several dozen. The majority of the other owners were outraged when they had to perform the minimum upkeep mandated by law - "do we really HAVE to get the fire extinguishers in the hall inspected? It's expensive!" Don't get me started on the roof repairs and mould. Not all landlords are pricks, but many of them behave like the barest minimum of sanitation and safety is somehow the same as stealing their money.
Nobody is forced to become a landlord. Nobody is required to rent out a property. If the owner doesn't want wear and tear on the property, they can let it sit empty. Or they can live in it themselves. Or they can sell it. Just like a worker at any job can resign if they don't want to do the work.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll bet landlords are guilty of more scummy/immoral/illegal behavior than all of their tenants combined. Where are the surveillance cameras to catch landlords doing things like harassing tenants and failing to maintain their buildings in the hopes of evicting people so they can jack up the rent?
A smart landlord hires a "property management company" to do all of that "bad stuff".
It also gives the landlord a built-in "fall guy" when those issues start becoming "public news".
Wait, are you TRYING not to help people? (Score:2)
If you read this just as they've said it, the argument is that we should not police minority communities and protect them against illegal and dangerous activity. In what universe is that acceptable? You want crime to increase in minority communities? That's messed up.
What a great time... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bonus points if you accidentenly makes Alexa's illegal.
Re:Is it that hard to not break the law regularly? (Score:5, Insightful)
I haven't broken a law - aside from speeding* - in probably decades.
Congrats. The average American commits three felonies a day. And I have no idea how many things I did that violated my lease when I rented.
"If you're not doing anything wrong, you don't need privacy" is offensive.
You're leaving out what those felonies are (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Is it that hard to not break the law regularly? (Score:4, Informative)
This number comes from a self-described "civil liberties" attorney pulling that number out of his ass [businessinsider.com] in 2009.
"Boston civil-liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate calls his new book "Three Felonies a Day," referring to the number of crimes he estimates the average American now unwittingly commits because of vague laws."/quote
Re:Is it that hard to not break the law regularly? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you do a perfect job at separating your recycling?
Have you ever had a friend or family member stay over for more than a few days?
Have you ever played music after 10p.m.?
It's basically impossible to perfectly adhere to every term of one's lease, especially if the tenant is looking for an excuse to kick you out.
Re: (Score:2)
No...why?
It's not something required where I live...you don't have to recycle here at all.
Is this a law in some places in the US?
Re: Is it that hard to not break the law regularly (Score:2)
It's part of many lease agreements, regardless of the law.
Re:Is it that hard to not break the law regularly? (Score:5, Interesting)
Funny that the cunt who founded one of the companies appears to be unable to follow the rules. He was convicted of helping himself to his clients' funds via bad checks in 2021...
https://therealdeal.com/2019/0... [therealdeal.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There's a belief out there that the average american commits 3 felonies a day. [skillsetmag.com] Often without even knowing it.
The idea is that by intensive surveillance, justified by a potential gain of like $3k/month, will catch most renters out eventually in some violation that would normally go unnoticed.
Re:Is it that hard to not break the law regularly? (Score:5, Informative)
This number comes from a pop-culture civil liberties attorney Harvey A. Silvergate's book "Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent (2009)".
So yes, the source for this claim is a book written by someone who has a massive vested interest in making the number as high as possible to sell his book. It has no bearing on reality.
Re: (Score:3)
Like I said, it's a belief, I didn't say it was true. However, the idea that it is really easy to break the law unintentionally, or even unknowingly, is true.
The idea that you're more likely to catch somebody in an illegal act(something like 30% of US households use illegal drugs, and 10% of individuals over 12), or even just a contract violation with what amounts to 24x365 surveillance should be obvious.
When you want to evict a tenant in order to raise the rent because you can't do it directly, you can ge
Re:Is it that hard to not break the law regularly? (Score:5, Insightful)
What we should really really be mad at is why there is such a shortage in a city like New York? Why is it so expensive, and laced with red tape to expand the supply of housing? Government should work to make it easier to build more buildings that are larger and taller. That way, more people who want to rent there can. Some will mod this post down. Don't care.
Re: (Score:3)
The reason why it's so expensive is because of geographic realities. Large portion of NYC is on islands so no room horisontally. The rest is on land that is directly linked to those islands, so it's constrained. "Upstate New York" is a very different beast from NYC for this very reason.
And NYC is where it is because it's an excellent natural harbor.
Re: (Score:3)
And what the "free market" solution to all this, 'remove the red tape', ignores is another reality: These restrictions are enforced by NIMBYs who don't want taller buildings blocking their view or
Re: Is it that hard to not break the law regularly (Score:2, Insightful)
And this is precisely why people don't like the so-called "free" market: it fucks them over for someone else's profit at every turn. But yeah "big gubbernment" is evil.
The market ain't free. Its ruled by people with inherited money. Its a kleptocracy. And people like you seem to think that it's great that way. You must be heavily invested in it.
Re:Is it that hard to not break the law regularly? (Score:4, Interesting)
There's no apartments available to rent in NYC because developers build "luxury" units that are immediately bought for more than the market price by numbered bank accounts and never lived in or even rented out. Meanwhile, actual working Americans who need somewhere to live get screwed.
Re: (Score:2)
You're forgetting another factor: Places like NYC and London are red-hot hotbeds of bankster and international criminal money laundering via real estate.
There's no apartments available to rent in NYC because developers build "luxury" units that are immediately bought for more than the market price by numbered bank accounts and never lived in or even rented out. Meanwhile, actual working Americans who need somewhere to live get screwed.
Which is why we should tax the shit out of empty homes.
Rent it, sell it or wear the tax burden of having a holiday home. But don't let it sit fallow.
What's even worse are negative gearing laws in some countries where they can use the losses they're making on these properties (going as far to claim unpaid rent for a property that isn't even on the rental market) against their tax obligations from other income sources.
Re: (Score:2)
> The pettiness comes from a market inefficiency
Pettiness is not the result of market theory.
> Someone else is willing to pay the landlord more for their property, and the landlord is more than willing to accept the tenant who values their apartment more
To value something more and the ability to pay a higher price for something are not at all the same thing.
and so on
> What we should really really be mad at is why there is such a shortage in a city like New York? Why is it so expensive, and laced wi
Re: Is it that hard to not break the law regularly (Score:2)
Re:Is it that hard to not break the law regularly? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a failure of the market. There are certain things that are inelastic to demand, healthcare being the main one. Trying to make it work with market principals always produce undesirable results and distortions in the economy. As advanced nations, we just have to accept that the market is not the solution to everything, and we need common sense approaches to temper the excesses that market conditions create.
Re: (Score:2)
There are certain things that are inelastic to demand, healthcare being the main one.
If you think that, you don't understand either healthcare or economics. There's absolutely variation in what people will tolerate, and substitution of quality of goods. It's like saying that demand for food is inelastic because everybody has to eat -- but people can consume between 1500 and 3500 calories per day by adjusting their weight, and they can choose rice and beans versus steak and lobster.
(Also, it's not that something is "inelastic to demand", it's the supply or demand itself that is inelastic.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes rent control is just a short sighted approach that causes new problems, while only masking rather than actually fixing the original one.
The government's job should be to solve the problem by increasing supply and/or decreasing demand, both of which are within the remit of government. Unfortunately many government employees can't think this far ahead.
Re: (Score:2)
The government isn't here to create some idealized neo-liberal market. It's here to serve the will of the people. Maybe people don't want a basic need that is fundamental to their survival to be a commodity?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People who say "I've never broken the law" have no bearing on reality. It's "I've never been caught".
And to your cousin post, insisting a law is outdated and written stupidly does nothing to the judge. Being thrown in jail for having ice cream in your back pocket is no worse than the clusterfuck we call the CFAA or DMCA. "Dumb laws" don't change the reality at the start of this post.
The law is about selective enforcement and avoiding attention. Actual compliance is of tertiary relevance.
Re: (Score:3)
The linked article asserts that the average person unwittingly commits three felonies a day, but it doesn't list a single example. Yes, it does mention drug and alcohol abuse, but these are by no means "unknown" felonies. So I call BS.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the thing with averages, some people might not commit any felonies at all, while some hardened criminals are committing hundreds of individual felonies every day.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps. But the article certainly didn't produce any evidence, it just made dramatic, provokative statements.
I work as a volunteer with an inner city charity. We work with many people who have been incarcerated. Most of these people had one awful moment when hell broke loose in their lives. The US jail population is less than 1% of the population, and based on my experience working with these people, very few are "hardened" criminals.
Now, if you talk about misdemeanors, then I totally believe it. Who hasn'
Re:Is it that hard to not break the law regularly? (Score:5, Interesting)
The funny thing is that the founder of one of the two companies the article talks about (Ari Teman) is a CONVICTED felon who fucked over his own clients by writing bad checks. Rules for thee and not for me. Hope he gets some quality time, so to speak....
https://therealdeal.com/2019/0... [therealdeal.com]
Re: (Score:2)
As a Finn, you would in fact speed. Because pretty much everyone does. Our scaling is not what many of Western journos lied about it a few years ago when one of our hockey players got a huge fine for speeding.
The system works like this:
Most of the speed measurements are done by traffic cameras. Most of those today are still of the old offline type, where they are moved around special boxes alongside speed trap points.
Fining is done by specific scale. First 3km/h is given to you for free as an error correcti
Re: (Score:2)
Would the average radar detector pick these up in time for you to slow down as you approach one?
Re: (Score:2)
Depends. Many of those speeding hit the brakes before the known spots where camera mounts are for the older ones.
Newer one look different and they supposedly can also measure the average speed of any vehicle that passes this camera as well as previous one, identifying them by license plate. How well that works? I've no idea, I haven't been fined for speeding for at least twenty years.
Re: (Score:2)
So if the limit is 100 km/h you only get 3% margin? That is almost within the margin of error of a typical speedometer. If I was subject to automatic fines by camera and only had a 3 km/h window to stay within, I'd be driving below the limit and checking the dashboard constantly. I personally can't eyeball the difference between 100 and 106, so I'd be constantly taking my eyes off the road to verify. Seems to be less safe honestly.
Re: (Score:2)
6%. No one really cares about the warnings. And you get used to it pretty quickly. Most of the time, you just stay in the flow of the vehicles, and the flow typically goes speed limit + ~2-3km/h.
Re:Is it that hard to not break the law regularly? (Score:4, Informative)
I haven't broken a law - aside from speeding* - in probably decades.
You've memorized every stupid law created over hundreds of years in America to ensure you're well aware of the fact that chickens crossing the road is illegal in Georgia?
You've broken plenty of laws. Likely every day. There was simply no one around who gave a shit when you did.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: Is it that hard to not break the law regularly (Score:2)
Your assuming that the fact that you didn't
actually touch the yellow line means your not going to get pulled over for it and ticketed/threatened/searched.
Historically black people can't avoid getting arrested/fined/imprisoned for breaking the law, by simply following the law.
Re: (Score:3)
He's NEVER been caught by a suddenly ending passing lane on a highway because the douche you were passing decided to speed up. NEVER turned his wheels a bit more because of traffic going the other way also making a left and as a result grazed the middle line with the left rear tire. NEVER hit a patch of ice and had a wheel slide over the line. NEVER casually crossed it because the deer decided to stop on this side of the hig
Re: (Score:3)
A bit further than lawbreaking (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not just lawbreaking though, it's also contract violations that will get you.
Having a pet might not be against the law, but it will probably be against the contract. Even if they're allowed, what if the puppy or kitten you get grows just a bit too large?
You can't have a party at your house, because what if they're loud? Hell, better not bring any friends over because what if they're loud, or you get an accusation of subletting? Etc...
Are you a single mother? Better not bring any boyfriends home...
These people can get very picky and shitty.
Re:A bit further than lawbreaking (Score:4, Insightful)
I have been a tenant between 2001 and 2018, in various cities and towns (not in the US, though).
My landlords (with a couple exceptions) didn't care what I was doing in their apartments. I had pets, but they never urinated in the hallways (I had cats, they were house pets). I never (and I mean it) held loud parties in the place I rented. Never did drugs, never got into fistfights, never sublet the place.
It's fucking COMMON SENSE.
But back to your post:
Having a loud party is on you, as a tenant. Assume the risk and deal with the consequences. you want loud and rowdy parties? Rent a party place. Can't afford it? life's tough.
Having a pet is against the contract? Don't get a pet. Alternatively, look for an apartment where the contract allows it. I've been in that situation, and convinced the landlord to change his mind, added clauses in the contract, and when I left I paid a bit over €500 for damaged furniture (my cat scratched a couch and armchair, I was aware of that and I paid for damages). It's called "being responsible".
Bringing someone over is never a breach of contract, as a matter of fact it's illegal to forbid that where I live, furthermore this is not considered subletting. Here, apartments have a maximum number of people which can comfortably live in them (say, 4 people), and you can bring people over (to that maximum amount) for short periods of time (two weeks, I believe, but I haven't checked since 2011 when I had some guests stay over).
To summarize: if you plan to do something that's a contract violation, be prepared to deal with the consequences.
Re: (Score:3)
In cities where there is a high vacancy rate, landlords will put up with all kinds of things.
But it cities where there are more tenants looking for apartments than space available, and where some tenants will pay much more money for the going rate, landlords will happily do whatever it takes - including invasive surveillance and invade tenants' privacy to the maximum amount possible - to raise rents, evict tenants, and maximize their profits.
I'm n
Re: (Score:2)
All good questions, but I don't believe the process of eviction (and re-rating such locations as no longer rent-controlled) is free from review, is it? (I genuinely don't know)
To your points: ...just don't have a pet. Not a hamster, not a goldfish. And re the growing puppy/kitten thing, are there such restrictions? ie "you can have a dog but not over 15" high"? again, I genuinely don't know, but it would seem on you as the renter t
- if your contract says 'no pets' it would seem pretty simple and obvious
Re: (Score:2)
We're not talking about laws ... we're talking about often arbitrary laws enforced by corporate landlords. You may not even know that you're breaking them -- say if you have a friend staying over more than x nights in a row without being on the lease.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What do you mean "You may not even know that you're breaking them"?
If it's in the contract, you should know about them. If you still don't, well, whose fault is it?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You haven't, yet the sanctimonious cunt who founded one of the companies (Ari Teman) certainly did. In fact, he was arrested, and later convicted, for writing bad checks to himself from his clients' accounts. Typical snotnose techbro attitude -- "Durrrr, rules for thee, not for me, BRAWWWWK AWK!"
https://therealdeal.com/2019/0... [therealdeal.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Most people break the law quite often, they just don't know it. E.g. my local law states that if there is anything on the road. E.g. a paper cup or plastic back, I should stop and remove the object from the road.You can imagine how many people break that law, without even realizing that the law exists. Then especially for driving, there are several laws and most people (about 70%) think they know them, but actually they got them wrong. They break the law while thinking that they don't. Then there are unclea
Solution to This (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
This has nothing to do with laws and there is no judge or jury or "innocent until proven guilty" to rely on. This is about breaking the rules your landlord decided to throw into your lease.
You put a nail in the wall to hang something? Evicted for damaging the property.
Grease clog in the drain? Evicted because you clearly ignored the rule against pouring grease in the drains.
Had a couple of friends over and made too much noise laughing at a movie after 10pm? Evicted for loud parties.
Refused to give the p [curbed.com]
Re: (Score:2)
just....don't break the law?
I haven't broken a law - aside from speeding* - in probably decades.
It's funny and dumb how you suggest that people just shouldn't break the law but at the same time are unsure whether you have done so yourself in the past decades.
You're having a stockholm syndrome towards the assholes in your society that want to squeeze you for the last drop of blood you posses. It's irrational.
Re: (Score:3)
just....don't break the law?
In the first place, from TFS: "tenant slips in hallway" is listed as one of the transgressions - how lame is that? Landlords and supers can 'arrange' for that kind of thing to happen. In the second place, spying doesn't need to find actual violations - it only needs to find apparent evidence that can be twisted into something compelling.
In the third place, when that kind of spying becomes the norm, using deep-fake tech to manufacture evidence - using existing footage as a starting point - WILL be its own gr
Re: Is it that hard to not break the law regularly (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The founder of one of the two companies mentioned in the article is a convicted felon who stole from his own clients. Good example of "rules for thee and not for me." I'm normally against incarceration, but I hope he gets at least a day with a cellmate who kicks some sense into his ugly mug...
https://therealdeal.com/2019/0... [therealdeal.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sick of these shitbags doing evil and getting away with it, Yeah life is not a ever fucking happily ever after Disney movie, etc. but when one does manage to wind up with Bubba, it makes my fucking week,
"Suffer, shitbag, SUFFER!"
Re: (Score:3)
Shit like this needs to be illegal. When you live in a world where people can even have decent-paying jobs, but are still homeless because they still can't afford rent, then shit is fucked up and needs to change
What part of this comment is flamebait? The Correct mods for parent comment should be +1, Insightful. If you can't mod correctly, don't mod at all.