So they’ll board 'em up with scrap instead. Would’ve been better for the landlords if they’d let people use the fitted shutters, but whatever works in a storm.
A couple of renters said they plan to get into the closet somehow and put the shutters up anyway.
“It’s humans, people living here," Genesis Aldorado said.
“My child and her child and everybody’s child are more important than the rules of this community," Brittany Duarete said.
Landlords 0, Tenants 1.
If that is the plan, by the time they finished rebuilding, everything around (also having been rebuilt) will be fresh and new, so yeah, a nice upscale place for high-paying renters. Not a disaster area anymore once it’s gentrified.
This would indicate that the tenants are not a class likely to have highly-paid attorneys on retainer. So that kinda counters all the talk of lawsuits. Unless a Saul Goodman type latches onto it, the landlords needn’t worry much about the tenants.
Landlords 1, Tenants 1. A tense match. How will it end?
In the video there is some mention of someone from the management company apparently telling one of the tenants that the shutters are not safe.
If the management co. had reason to believe the shutters were inadequately fixed that would be about only reason I can see that would justify this. I gather badly secured shutters cause quite a lot of damage in themselves in hurricanes? I don’t know, I’m lucky enough to live somewhere where we don’t get that kind of storm.
Even then of course, the answer wouldn’t be, you can’t use the shutters and we’re not going to do anything else. It would be: You can’t use these shutters, we’re provided some better ones and they’ll be in place pronto.
Read their lease. I have not, BUT you can put things in Florida leases that you cannot put in other places and someone above had said there was a limit in the lease re personal belongings. It’s possible, not sure if it’s factual.
But also, if it is subsidized housing there will be a defined path to a legal recourse, but a limited one. There will be a HUD cap on how much ‘belongings’ will be covered per unit (per BR if I recall correctly)
It seems that the developers of this complex were given tax dollars to build it and in return agreed to maximum rent amounts in order to provide (RELATIVELY) low income housing options. By deliberately preventing the shutters they are allowing the windows to become broken and thus causing extensive water damage. Insurance will probably not pay anything to repair the damage because the owners “failed to mitigate” the damage (and could possibly also be charged with criminal negligence). Enough damage – even if only in some units – and the entire set of buildings will likely be condemned.
So what is the advantage? Well … if the taxpayer funded buildings are torn down a new privately funded complex can go up, sans the rent limitations … the new development will be able to built using the now existing taxpayer funded gas/water/electric infrastructure … and because of Hurricane Irma there is likely to be a major housing shortage in the area which will cause rents to skyrocket … and add in a huge tax writeoff for the loss as well … In a couple years the new development will probably be far more profitable than the existing complex ever would be.
Of course lawsuits will be filed, but that will not be much help to most of the 130 unit tenants who will have no place to live next week.
My shutters don’t have wood and neither does the complex across from me… been fine all the years I’ve been here without it. Even if they have wood and have been using it for years, the area for it can be supported so why make a big deal now? Easy, because they’re trying to set them up for abandonment.
I still suspect their logic might be “If we let them put shutters on they can’t egress in case of a fire” as being what’s “not safe” about using the shutters.
Beyond the idiocy of this, the “opinion” of the news channels legal expert is almost amusing as it is almost content free.
I would imagine, although I am no lawyer, that common law allows extraordinary measures in extraordinary circumstances.
Normally, most leases would prohibit you from pouring hundreds of gallons of water into your unit but common law would say that doing so while fighting a fire would not be a lease violation, as one silly example.
I’d say that whoever4 made this decision at the management company has having their company out to dry in terms of lawsuits after this if people sustain damage.
In fact, if I am not mistaken, there are times when a tenant would be required by law to take reasonable steps to protect the landlord’s property.
1st I assume this is more of a PEON reading the “manual” and stating company bylaws disallowing shutters (intended for NON storm times)
2ND a LAWYER concerned about tennants getting injured DURING the fitting of shutters on NON ground floor windows
I will add in Canada you can get rull shutters that are automatic and made out of metal granted this is beyond HUD pricing
I’m no hurricane expert although leaving all windows open in a building could mitigate / prevent destruction from im / explosion of a dwelling structure due to fluctuating atmospheric pressures exertion.
Not much of an options but the structure might endure.
