Even the most cynical of speculations as to the potential monetary motivation behind this decision don’t make sense:
Intentionally allow extensive property damage, physical harm and potential deaths to occur so that the current tenants will be ‘forced out,’ so as to make way for wealthier tenants somewhere down the line?
Lawsuits abound, likely from both the tenants and the insurance company that insures the property. Or at the very least, the insurance company refuses to cover the damages.
Make this dumbass decision hoping the current tenants will defy it, putting up the shutters anyway, and “violate their leases” which allows them to be evicted?
Even bigger lawsuits will result, probably class action.
No matter how you look at it, if this idea is just a greedy ploy to make more money, it’s not a very good one…
All I can think is to wonder if the management company believes itself to be protected by a binding arbitration agreement. And they’re idiots who don’t realize their property is going to be damaged. I guess they could be trying for a flood insurance payout, but if they have any, it’s seems likely their insurer will tell them to fuck off when they read the damning email.
Maybe I’m overthinking this. Maybe they’re just morons.
or to not have to make any repairs, immediately after the storm. If they assume it’s going to be so damaged as to be unprofitable, letting it get so wrecked that the tenants are removed by the board of health is a lot cheaper, in my estimation.
And because this is Florida, I doubt the tenants have many rights. Where I live in my regulated Blue State, those landlords would be in a world of trouble right now for willfully not preparing to protect their tenants. From actual courts, not the court of public opinion.
o_0 This is like the 2nd similar comment. Was there something I missed where one would think this was an issue? That place looked fairly high class to begin with. LOCATION is the main cause of price. If they wanted tenants out, you just raise their rent.
Some times people are just stupid with out some over arching scheme.
Could be they will say something like, “Shutters, I hate those things. You’ll just be sitting there minding your own business, and they’ll come marching in and crawl up your leg and start biting the inside of your ass - And you’ll be all like ‘Hey get out of my ASS YOU STUPID SHUTTERS!!!’”
"Cartman, what the HELL are you talking about?!?! "
“I’m talking about shutters! I hate those friggin’ things.”
“Shutters are those things that cover windows to protect them from breaking in high wind and debris.”
"Ohhhhhh… SHUTTERS. Oh yeah, I like those, those are cool. "
These convoluted-ass Machiavellian money-making schemes that some people are coming up with seem way less plausible than the possibility that it’s mere human stupidity at work.
There are too many unknown variables for it to be an effective strategy; the property managers have no way of knowing how extensive any damage may be.
There’s no way to know how long it will take to rebuild, or how much it’s going to cost in total.
There is no ‘guarantee’ that the insurance company will cover the damage, especially in light of the ill advised letter. (People seem to forget that insurance companies actively look for reasons to renege on big payouts.)
And then of course there’s the previously mentioned potential for litigation from the tenants for willfully endangering their health & safety for no apparent reason.
Long story short; there are easier, more viable ways to be a greedy, heartless bastard - this is just stupid.
Either idiots; or creative, optimistic(but, chillingly, possibly correct) interpreters of how the structure of relevant flood and other insurance agreements will work out for them in high damage and low damage scenarios.
One typically maximizes profit on rental units by taking steps to keep it from getting damaged; but there are exceptions.
Don’t get me wrong; I’m not saying that this is definitely not a case of corporate evil trying to capitalize on a natural disaster. I don’t put anything past ‘big business.’
I’m saying that this is an unbelievably idiotic way to go about it.
Raw Story reached out to Services Taylor Made to get the company’s side of the story. However, the representative who answered the phone at the company’s main office hung up immediately when asked about its policies on Colony Park window shutters.
Heh.
“Understand that while we empathize with your need to protect your personal property, boarding up your residence is NOT something you are allowed to do,” a letter to residents read, according to WPTV.
Is it possible that this was a total communications break-down, and what they really meant was that tenants can’t board-up the windows with ad hoc wood and nails, but must use the management’s shutters?
I haven’t said they have better tenants, or that there would be. Or that before the storm that was going to probably do a lot of damage to their property was forecast they likely had plans to evict people. I am saying that if the place is poorly built, the cost of renovating post storm is a lot greater if you have people living there.
Don’t mistake me as defending it, but that’s the cold calculus I see. I don’t think they wanted to see the place wrecked, I think the owners know something you and I and the tenants do not know.
