• snooggums@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    134
    ·
    4 months ago

    Some attorneys say it’s not practical, especially for tenants with overdue rent.

    You don’t say!

  • freshcow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    American “justice” system at work. This really makes my blood boil to read. I hope this law is overturned, it’s beyond absurd - its also malicious.

  • lone_faerie@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    4 months ago

    So evict someone living paycheck to paycheck and force them onto the street, they won’t be able to afford to challenge it because they’d need to put up more money than they have, and then arrest them because homelessness is illegal.

    • Queen HawlSera
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      4 months ago

      And… prison labor is profitable…

      “We’re bringing back slavery baby!” - JD Vance probably

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        JD Vance has that weird Christian-Soviet obsession with bringing industrial production (EDIT: back from China etc) to the USA. Maybe bunking on factory territory included, like in good old year 1904.

        I know it’s a propaganda device, but what isn’t.

    • T00l_shed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      4 months ago

      Fuck, when you put it like that, it almost sounds like it was planned that way. What a funny cowinky-dink.

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Who ya gonna believe? The honest Trump-fearing landlord, or the homeless criminal?

      • Queen HawlSera
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        The fact that people will likely worship him as a God if he wins again…

  • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    4 months ago

    So if someone wants a cash infusion, they can evict their tenants without notice and get a years worth of rent instantly? I’m sure that won’t be abused.

    • Xhieron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Bonds are paid into court. They don’t go directly into the landlord’s pocket. Also nobody gets evicted without notice (and understand that notice is a term of art in this context–plenty of people get evicted without knowing about it or being actually made aware, but every state has a requirement that you have to do one of a limited number of things in order to provide notice to a tenant of an eviction).

      This is a shitty law, but please don’t make stuff up or draw assumptions to pretend it’s worse than it actually is.

      The problem this state (via the landlords’ lobbying for this change) is trying to fix is the scenario in which an evicted tenant gets a sympathetic judge in a jurisdiction with a long docket backlog and basically gets to squat in the property rent-free for however long they can stretch out the litigation. If you’re just now becoming familiar with the value of litigants dragging out litigation, well, welcome to 2024.

      I know social media despises landlords (and there’s very good reason to revile institutional real estate hoarders), but there are good public policy reasons to not want people squatting in properties rent-free, one of which is that if the landlord can’t get a non-paying tenant off the property through legal means, they will pursue non-legal means instead. There are much better ways to accomplish this than the way TN has here, but shotgun evictions are something we’d really like to avoid.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        The problem this state (via the landlords’ lobbying for this change) is trying to fix is the scenario in which an evicted tenant gets a sympathetic judge in a jurisdiction with a long docket backlog and basically gets to squat in the property rent-free for however long they can stretch out the litigation

        Classic case of the solution being many times worse than the problem.

        Also, people too poor to afford rent don’t tend to be able to afford dragging out litigation either. Lawyers are expensive and even if you manage to get pro bono representation, there’s likely to be limits.

        if the landlord can’t get a non-paying tenant off the property through legal means, they will pursue non-legal means instead.

        So the solution to landlords breaking the law to get rid of poor people is to make it unaffordable for poor people to contest unfair evictions?

        Sounds like landlord logic…

        shotgun evictions are something we’d really like to avoid.

        Then take the gun away from landlords in stead of pointing one at homeless or soon to be homeless people.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 months ago

        It was never rent free. The system they got rid of said the court set a payment already. The idea that it was rent free is pure propaganda.

        • Xhieron@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          My brother in Christ, I have worked in landlord-tenant on and off for decades, and I’ve been on both sides of many, many evictions. If you think courts always exercise their discretion fairly and equitably, I have a bridge to sell you.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            4 months ago

            Being fair some of the time is still a lot better than, “fuck you, you’re too poor for justice.”

      • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        I missed that it went to the court, the term payed rather than posed a bond or something suggested it went to the landlord. But to the court makes much more sense.

  • rayyy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    Sounds reasonable, at least to the Elon Musk type of folk. After all, laws are made to accommodate the wealthy. Look at the wealthy orange felon/rapist - he is waltzing all around laws that would put you in prison for ten lifetimes.

  • dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    4 months ago

    Do you want mass migration out of your state? Because this is how you get mass migration out of your state.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Except for the fact that most of the people who can’t afford rent can’t afford to move to another state either.

      Plus there’s the ones who can’t leave because of family or work.

      If moving both yourself and who/what you need with you was free, almost nobody would live in non-Nashville Tennessee.

      • HelluvaKick@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        I love my non nashville tennessee city, and love my state. But I hate our state’s legislature. And nashville honestly

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Except for the fact that most of the people who can’t afford rent can’t afford to move to another state either.

        What do people in USA need to move to another state? Is there some registration paperwork or something?

        I mean, it seemed that not, with reading about needing an ID to vote being a point of contention and a tool for disenfranchising voters and such.

        The minimal technicalities.

        Distance itself matters, but hitchhiking is an option?.. Or if a bicycle is not too expensive?..

        Finding a new job seems to be the main problem, but I think it’s similar for people not struggling with rent too. It is simply not an easy predictable thing.

        Family - well, same as the previous sentence.

        So something specific for people unable to afford rent - they need to, well, be able to afford rent for some short time in the new place and they need to get there and find a job with time constraints, because of not having a buffer of money. Physically moving one’s body seems the easiest part.

        • Charzard4261@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Don’t forget about moving their possessions. I don’t know if houses in America come fully furnished, but there’s no way you could sell all your furniture for enough to buy it all back in a new state.

          Also people surely have things that they would not want to sell, for personal or practical reasons, right? To pretend the only thing people need to move is themselves feels a little heartless.

          And we’ve not even talked about people with families yet…

          • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            True.

            I’d frankly be terrified about furniture and such in case of a time-pressing move.

            Bu-ut I sleep on a carpet to fight insomnia half the time, so.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      So long as businesses continue to develop capital projects that demand human labor, people will continue to migrate to the capital in order to secure livable wages. These policies are far more in line with a state that’s actively gentrifying and wants to force low-wage residents out than one that’s afraid it can’t get high wage professionals to move in.

      • dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 months ago

        The low wage workers who they are trying to drive out make the place attractive to be a high wage earner. No high wage earner wants to live somewhere they can’t reliably order a pizza or go out for a drink, which is what you get if all the low wage people leave.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          No high wage earner wants to live somewhere they can’t reliably order a pizza or go out for a drink

          That’s why you’ll find slums in most major cities.

  • Queen HawlSera
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    4 months ago

    In saner years I’d say that the Supreme Court would never let this stand, but these days Clarence would just say “Fuck it, make it double.”