I sympathise with having "nightmare tenants" who trash the place, but fuck any Landlord who says you can't work from home because god forbid you use your home that you pay them for because you'd cause a bit more wear and tear than they would like.
fuck any Landlord who says you can't work from home because god forbid you use your home that you pay them for because you'd cause a bit more wear and tear than they would like.
Landlordism is in itself unethical. If you’re not using a home it belongs to the person who is making use of it. You shouldn’t have rights to leech wealth from them in perpetuity.
"Where you work" is not a protected characteristic in the US. Plenty of places where a landlord could throw this clause into the lease, and if they can prove you violated it, they can start eviction proceedings.
It would be very difficult to prove, and the ensuing legal battle may cost more than the "additional maintenance" that may be required, but in theory these bastards can do pretty much whatever they want.
I guess it depends on what freedoms you associate with being a domicile. Plenty of leases have specific restrictions in the agreement that are enforceable as long as they don't explicitly conflict with local laws. No smoking, no pets, etc are all valid and enforceable clauses to put in a lease. I've signed leases saying "guests can't stay longer than 24 hours" without batting an eye.
Requiring a tenant to be out of the house 8 hours per day is odd and difficult to prove, but if you sign a lease that says it, I don't see how you wouldn't be accountable to it.
A property owner can put whatever TF restrictions they want in the lease—and they often do! But just because it's in a contract doesn't mean it's legal (e.g. contract to kill).
Let's say a property owner finds out their tenant is working from home. They claim a violation of the lease and start eviction proceedings. That's dumb AF.
This would only ever be used as an excuse for a tenant they don't like.
If it came before a judge, even they would be like, "WTF?" And would probably not demand an explanation, but instead would point to mountains of case law that say a property owner can't dictate what people can and can't do within a rental property as long as those activities don't impact the property (e.g. the value).
That's when the property owner would have to explain how Joe Schmoe working from home is somehow worse than retiree Judy Anywoman who stays at home all day every day.
Oh yeah, as I said, it's a very difficult thing to prove and absolutely not worth the money wasted trying to enforce it. But there's no rule saying dogs can't play basketball. If a landlord wants to put it in, and a tenant knowingly signs it, the tenant needs to be prepared for the possibility of this turning into a huge pain in the ass.
Where i live, you can say no pets, but that is not enforceable, they can deny you on the application, but you can get a pet the minute you move in and the landlords cant evict you for it
This does depend on where you live. I have had pets in every "no pets" lease I've ever had because in my area its unenforceable and not an envictable offence unless under very specific circumstances, usually the landlord would have to be living in the same building and have an allergy to pets to be able to enforce a no pets rule.
Theres lots of bullshit landlords will put in a lease because they think whatever they write is law but there are often certain standards that apply regardless of what the lease says.
No businesses from home is a relatively common condition in a lease and co-op ownership contract, especially if the business involves people constantly visiting the home or turns the mailroom into a warehouse.
It is the equivalent of a lease banning a person from setting up an Airbnb in the unit they rented.
I've seen some insane restrictions on what you can and can't do in apartments.
Like in my apartment I'm only allowed to put an AC in 1 window of my apartment (the furthest from the bedrooms BTW), it can't be anything other than a portable AC, and any gap around the hose needs to be clear (glass, polycarbonate, acrylic, etc.) yes even the window insert that comes with the AC has to be clear. When I moved in I thought the insert around the hose that came with it not being clear would be fine, it in fact was not. It also has power draw restrictions so I can only basically get the smallest kinds on the market.
I'm also required to have all windows and doors closed and locked when nobody is at home. Yes that means I have to pull my AC hose out of my window when I'm not home. I figured that out again the first year I lived in my apartment. (they rang my bell when I wasn't home, then sent me a certified letter informing me I had 72 hours to fix the problem or they would serve me notice to vacate.)
Yes every summer it easily clears 90F (32C) inside and sometimes even breaks 100F (37C). And due to being an upstairs apartment that means the heat stays almost in it's entirety overnight.
That's the big problem really, affording the ability to fight shit like this.
I'm unfortunately in such a situation where I wouldn't be able to fight it if they tried to evict me for it.
Though my home state now makes it so they have to allow us to install one, it doesn't mention them being unable to put restrictions on it's install. One of those fun things where it's better than it used to be it's still not perfect. But steps in the right direction is always a plus.
I’m a landlord and I don’t care, the house is meant to be used. I’m not using it and your paying me to use it so have at it, it’s my job to save enough of your rent to fix stuff as it fails
Yeah, my tenants have got a dog and we keep the white goods in working order for them. I don’t need them to pay off my mortgage, just want to treat them with the respect I’d want my landlord to treat me with.
100% they’re bad tenants. They’re also people who never want to own, they’re people that will never be able to afford to own. There will always be a need for land lords
Sure, under our current system. But you said there will always be a need for landlords, which I take issue with.
But housing doesn't have to operate the way it does now. There's a variety of ways to pay for people to have housing under a money-based system, like through taxes. The soviet union had housing cooperatives.
Hell, you don't even need to go that far, housing prices are currently so high because we allow massive real estate corporations to buy up property to artificially inflate price. Government regulation on real estate as an industry would serve to lower housing prices.
At the very least, make it so they can't just sit on vacant homes.
But that’s IF the government would build said housing. Or it takes it away from owners which is fucked. I’m all for government owned housing if they will build it and maintain it. It could lower housing prices and rents, your right if they build enough of them where needed
You can say that about a lot of things, matter of fact now, you have to pay for housing, there is no fantasy land where you don’t and won’t in our life time
Nah that's stupid. Why do you presume to know that there will "always" be a need for landlords? People thought there would always be kings until democracy developed, people thought there would always be nobility until capitalism emerged and rendered the land-based social relationships that defined feudal nobility meaningless. You lack imagination.
Ok, in our life times we will always need landlords. I know future generations could have a different setup. We can’t product the future. Maybe AI will lead to government built housing and UBI. We don’t know.
The only power a landlord has here is when people break stuff on purpose, cause actual disturbance or do not pay. Stuff like race, dogs, job and all that type discrimination is not allowed.
While pet ownership and any sort of discrimination is not allowed in Norway, renters here view in envy at our neighbours regulated renting markets, especially the lowlanders in Denmark. But what hurts the progression here the most right now, is that up to 80 % of adults own their homes, so regulating for the lower 20 % will never be a priority, since that might hurt most people.
Well maybe if the entire property wasn't done up with the landlord special of tippex on walls and the world's cheapest laminate floors they'd be able to hold up to the rigours of minor usage.
This is why I treat it like a rental. When I was renting my deposit was 10 days of rent and I didn't expect to get it back because I knew from someone else leaving that the landlord was a wanker.
I started homebrewing when I lived there, had a batch explode and splatter honey water all across the room. I quickly learnt to avoid the patches of carpet that were sticky. Knowing that the landlord wouldn't repay the deposit without me taking him to court anyway, I didn't bother cleaning it up.
I've been in the same place for over a decade, the deposit I'd like back but the place is kinda infamous for nickle and dime issues to keep as much as possible. Also the new management company have been sticklers for keeping things "clean" without saying what the standard is. I wipe up when I make a mess, sweep and mop when it's worth my time. Still, they made a stink that I wasn't perfect. So now I pour oil down the kitchen sink.
Sounds like you shouldn’t be fucking landlording, then, because if I pay rent, I can do literally whatever the fuck I want that’s non-destructive and doesn’t disturb my neighbors.
I knew a guy that planted horseradish in his backyard garden, and within a couple of years it had taken over his entire backyard, with these big, ugly stalks.
He had plenty of great, sinus-clearing, eye-watering horseradish, though.
Since then, I've always thought that surreptitiously sticking a stick of horseradish in an enemy's yard would be an excellent revenge strategy. By the time they realize there is a problem, it will already be way too late.
Yes because rent is supposed to cover my investment costs as well as provide passive income. What do you mean my investment is bound to the property? This is only true when I sell it and cash out once again.
Saw a video where a couple who rent their home as an AirBNB were bitching that their tennants used the beds. In the very next scene, they bitched that the guests didn't eat the snacks in the kitchen.
The new customer service protocols seem to be "Gimme your money, here's your thing, now get out. What? You want the thing to work, too? We got your money, you got your thing, now get the fuck out of here, until you need another one, then come back and see me."
This landlord took the guy's money and gave him a lease, now the guy expects to actually LIVE there, too?
I’m currently going through this with Apple, whom I thought would care more about their reputation and repeat custom. I guess they don’t. Fuck you, Apple. Fix the faulty overpriced shit I paid for.
Ask anyone around me, and they will tell you that lately, my favorite phrase is to mutter under my breath (and sometime loudly) is "NOTHING WORKS ANY MORE!"
It brings up the point of families where one parent works and the other is home with the kids (I know this is increasingly rare, but they still exist) or retired people, or people who are disabled, or many of the other situations where someone would be home all day but not working. Could they legally tell a mom who is recovering from a recent birth or someone who is temporarily off work because of major surgery hey GTFO of your home for 8 hours a day? Methinks not.
The principle already exists. Halfway-houses often have curfews: if you're out of the house after X time without a valid excuse, you are in violation of your lease. There's also 55+ communities: if you're letting your 20-something kid crash with you, you're in violation of your lease.
As long as it's not a protected status or violates local renting laws explicitly, a landlord can put just about anything they want in the lease agreement. If the tenant signed the agreement with those clauses, they're obliged to abide by those clauses.
Halfway houses are for rehabilitation. A court allows you to live there with restrictions as opposed to locking you up. Even outside 55+ communities rentals can restrict other "tenants". Those are vastly different scenarios, legally speaking, to restricting what the legal renter can do while simply living. As others have pointed out stay at home parents are a thing.
Not exclusively. There are plenty that are run privately and/or partner with rehab clinics as the next step after in-patient detox.
Yes, a lot of people can end up there as part of a sentencing agreement, but not all. I would be surprised if it was even most. And regardless of inciting circumstances, it's still a living situation that is contingent on strict rules and guidelines that the tenant must agree to or face eviction. Which is exactly what we're talking about: can a landlord dictate the conditions under which you're allowed to stay? Yes, as long as it's in writing, agreed to by both parties, and doesn't violate any local, state, or federal laws.
If you want a less extreme example, we can talk about a lease that stipulates no smoking inside. That's a pretty standard clause these days in localities that allow it. Would we give it the same scrutiny and pushback? Probably not, because most people don't smoke these days and that expectation has been normalized. Just because landlords haven't gotten to normalize limited usage hours for a property yet doesn't mean it's illegal for them to try.
TL;DR: If it's not illegal, a lease can require anything both parties agree to. Not saying that is right, common, or economical to enforce, but it's a thing that is true.
Smoking causes damage to the unit. Damage which costs the landlord a lot of money to fix, and it'll never be fully purged.
Working on your computer for 8 hours does not. It would be no different from staying home and playing games all day as far as the condition of the unit is concerned.
... did you even read the thread your responding to? The whole premise is a landlord making a value judgement on the additional 8 hours per day that may incur wear and tear on the property.
And to be clear, I'm not arguing the validity of that position. I'm arguing the legality of that clause. It's difficult to prove and likely prohibitively expensive to enforce, but not fundamentally illegal in much of the US. If the landlord puts it in the lease, and the tenant signs that lease, then the tenant better be prepared for argumentative bullshit from their landlord.
I did read the thread. I was responding more to this:
Would we give it the same scrutiny and pushback? Probably not, because most people don't smoke these days and that expectation has been normalized.
So, no, we wouldn't, because it's an actually defensible protection of the property to prohibit something that clearly causes permanent damage while the other is simply being at home all day. And only specifically at home while working, which makes it even less defensible since the act of sitting at your computer typing and clicking your mouse to work is no more destructive to the unit than sitting at your computer typing and clicking your mouse to post on Facebook or play a game.
What if I'm retired and don't work at all? What if I work but I have a kid who stays home all day? What if I care for someone who's bedridden, but I also have a job, and I hire a nurse to be here while I'm away. What if I hire a maid to work the whole time I'm away at work? What if I invite five friends over after work every night? What if I'm obese, are you gonna cry about me wearing out the floor twice as fast because I weigh as much as two people? What's your policy on pacing, am I limited to a certain number of laps per day? If I'm clinically underweight, can I get an exception since I don't wear out floors as quickly?
What if I'm in a wheelchair, do I get a discount for not wearing out the floor as much? What if I work two jobs and am thus home only half the time, what about then?
What do they want at this point? Is it blood? Is it my soul? Are we just expected to start paying these people just for existing?
You have the cushiest arrangement ever. You own the house forever and all you have to do is take care of it while someone else pays you to live in it. How could you want more than that?
I've never owned a business or had employees. But, I can imagine what it feels like to come into work and see all the busy workers at their desks, etc., and knowing you "created" it. Having people knock respectfully on your door and ask questions, making decisions, taking pride in what you accomplished.
That's what they miss, the feeling of power and control. In fact, it's always about power and control first, and whatever the widget is they sell comes second. They don't care about the specific product, it could be any product, they don't care about the workers as individuals, only as a group they lord over, and direct. If they can't see and feel the direct response to their influence, that is the power they hold, then they aren't happy.
I'm surprised they think robots will provide that same high. Don't they know how empty a building full of machines feels?
110 replies
Gotta be ragebait.
I sympathise with having "nightmare tenants" who trash the place, but fuck any Landlord who says you can't work from home because god forbid you use your home that you pay them for because you'd cause a bit more wear and tear than they would like.
Landlordism is in itself unethical. If you’re not using a home it belongs to the person who is making use of it. You shouldn’t have rights to leech wealth from them in perpetuity.
They cannot enforce no working from home. God damn those parasites are so fucking out of touch
"Where you work" is not a protected characteristic in the US. Plenty of places where a landlord could throw this clause into the lease, and if they can prove you violated it, they can start eviction proceedings.
It would be very difficult to prove, and the ensuing legal battle may cost more than the "additional maintenance" that may be required, but in theory these bastards can do pretty much whatever they want.
I know, the where you work isn't protected, but bring a rental has the implicit use of being a domicile, with all the freedoms associated with it
I guess it depends on what freedoms you associate with being a domicile. Plenty of leases have specific restrictions in the agreement that are enforceable as long as they don't explicitly conflict with local laws. No smoking, no pets, etc are all valid and enforceable clauses to put in a lease. I've signed leases saying "guests can't stay longer than 24 hours" without batting an eye.
Requiring a tenant to be out of the house 8 hours per day is odd and difficult to prove, but if you sign a lease that says it, I don't see how you wouldn't be accountable to it.
Ooh, I actually know a little bit about this!
A property owner can put whatever TF restrictions they want in the lease—and they often do! But just because it's in a contract doesn't mean it's legal (e.g. contract to kill).
Let's say a property owner finds out their tenant is working from home. They claim a violation of the lease and start eviction proceedings. That's dumb AF.
Oh yeah, as I said, it's a very difficult thing to prove and absolutely not worth the money wasted trying to enforce it. But there's no rule saying dogs can't play basketball. If a landlord wants to put it in, and a tenant knowingly signs it, the tenant needs to be prepared for the possibility of this turning into a huge pain in the ass.
Yeah, yeah, we all know the Air Bud clause.
Where i live, you can say no pets, but that is not enforceable, they can deny you on the application, but you can get a pet the minute you move in and the landlords cant evict you for it
This does depend on where you live. I have had pets in every "no pets" lease I've ever had because in my area its unenforceable and not an envictable offence unless under very specific circumstances, usually the landlord would have to be living in the same building and have an allergy to pets to be able to enforce a no pets rule.
Theres lots of bullshit landlords will put in a lease because they think whatever they write is law but there are often certain standards that apply regardless of what the lease says.
Agreed, I said exactly as much:
What if you retire, and are not working from home, but are just "home"
Depending on the jurisdiction.
No businesses from home is a relatively common condition in a lease and co-op ownership contract, especially if the business involves people constantly visiting the home or turns the mailroom into a warehouse.
It is the equivalent of a lease banning a person from setting up an Airbnb in the unit they rented.
Working from home and operating a business out of your home are VASTLY different things.
It depends. If you're an independent contractor working for a company, you could be considered to be operating a business from your home.
The line has gotten blurry, especially after COVID.
It's that dog meme which I'm too lazy to even search for because I'm busy working to pay the rent: No Living! Just Rent!
Here you go
No take. Only throw.
Holy shit. I hope the top post is just satire.
Edit: lmao, jury still out on this one
The top probably is. But the bottom is probably true.
Its most likely not.
It obviously is.
DEFINITELY maybe.
It obviously is
I've seen some insane restrictions on what you can and can't do in apartments.
Like in my apartment I'm only allowed to put an AC in 1 window of my apartment (the furthest from the bedrooms BTW), it can't be anything other than a portable AC, and any gap around the hose needs to be clear (glass, polycarbonate, acrylic, etc.) yes even the window insert that comes with the AC has to be clear. When I moved in I thought the insert around the hose that came with it not being clear would be fine, it in fact was not. It also has power draw restrictions so I can only basically get the smallest kinds on the market.
I'm also required to have all windows and doors closed and locked when nobody is at home. Yes that means I have to pull my AC hose out of my window when I'm not home. I figured that out again the first year I lived in my apartment. (they rang my bell when I wasn't home, then sent me a certified letter informing me I had 72 hours to fix the problem or they would serve me notice to vacate.)
Yes every summer it easily clears 90F (32C) inside and sometimes even breaks 100F (37C). And due to being an upstairs apartment that means the heat stays almost in it's entirety overnight.
IANAL and I know not everyone can afford one to fight bs like this, but none of that sounds legally enforceable.
That's the big problem really, affording the ability to fight shit like this.
I'm unfortunately in such a situation where I wouldn't be able to fight it if they tried to evict me for it.
Though my home state now makes it so they have to allow us to install one, it doesn't mention them being unable to put restrictions on it's install. One of those fun things where it's better than it used to be it's still not perfect. But steps in the right direction is always a plus.
"Use the floor" makes it feel unserious imo, but could go either way
I have seen certain listings say something like $2400/m, $2600/m if you're a remote worker.
I’m a landlord and I don’t care, the house is meant to be used. I’m not using it and your paying me to use it so have at it, it’s my job to save enough of your rent to fix stuff as it fails
Yeah, my tenants have got a dog and we keep the white goods in working order for them. I don’t need them to pay off my mortgage, just want to treat them with the respect I’d want my landlord to treat me with.
Exactly, I got a 3% rate, no hurry in paying off mortgage plus it will probably be my retirement home some day
Thank you for your service
Do landlords not understand that pulling this shit is why tenants poor grease down the sink😭
Pulling this shit is how you get bad tenants
There are no "bad tenants", because that would imply inconveniencing landlords and costing them money is morally wrong. It's not, it's funny as hell😭
100% they’re bad tenants. They’re also people who never want to own, they’re people that will never be able to afford to own. There will always be a need for land lords
Well... No? You're assuming a system where you have to pay for housing.
Which is essentially every where, that’s life.
Sure, under our current system. But you said there will always be a need for landlords, which I take issue with. But housing doesn't have to operate the way it does now. There's a variety of ways to pay for people to have housing under a money-based system, like through taxes. The soviet union had housing cooperatives. Hell, you don't even need to go that far, housing prices are currently so high because we allow massive real estate corporations to buy up property to artificially inflate price. Government regulation on real estate as an industry would serve to lower housing prices. At the very least, make it so they can't just sit on vacant homes.
But that’s IF the government would build said housing. Or it takes it away from owners which is fucked. I’m all for government owned housing if they will build it and maintain it. It could lower housing prices and rents, your right if they build enough of them where needed
Only within a relatively recent stretch of history, before that you only needed to pay for fancy stuff (think pyramids or castles or whatnot)
Pay with money? No. But with blood when someone else decides they would like your home.
You can say that about a lot of things, matter of fact now, you have to pay for housing, there is no fantasy land where you don’t and won’t in our life time
Bad tenants and people who want to rent exist, but the rest I don't agree with
Nah that's stupid. Why do you presume to know that there will "always" be a need for landlords? People thought there would always be kings until democracy developed, people thought there would always be nobility until capitalism emerged and rendered the land-based social relationships that defined feudal nobility meaningless. You lack imagination.
Ok, in our life times we will always need landlords. I know future generations could have a different setup. We can’t product the future. Maybe AI will lead to government built housing and UBI. We don’t know.
Are you 80? I absolutely plan on living past the end of (at least most) landlordism.
I think you don’t realize how slow it will be to get to that point. I am a land lord, what’s the government going to do, take my land and property?
But also:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rsEs4HWXeY
That's illegal in my country.
The only power a landlord has here is when people break stuff on purpose, cause actual disturbance or do not pay. Stuff like race, dogs, job and all that type discrimination is not allowed.
While pet ownership and any sort of discrimination is not allowed in Norway, renters here view in envy at our neighbours regulated renting markets, especially the lowlanders in Denmark. But what hurts the progression here the most right now, is that up to 80 % of adults own their homes, so regulating for the lower 20 % will never be a priority, since that might hurt most people.
Must be nice in your country :)
Prices have been increasing faster than our wages. It's still kind of manageable but living alone is just a waste of money cause you can't save much.
Well maybe if the entire property wasn't done up with the landlord special of tippex on walls and the world's cheapest laminate floors they'd be able to hold up to the rigours of minor usage.
This is why I treat it like a rental. When I was renting my deposit was 10 days of rent and I didn't expect to get it back because I knew from someone else leaving that the landlord was a wanker.
I started homebrewing when I lived there, had a batch explode and splatter honey water all across the room. I quickly learnt to avoid the patches of carpet that were sticky. Knowing that the landlord wouldn't repay the deposit without me taking him to court anyway, I didn't bother cleaning it up.
I've been in the same place for over a decade, the deposit I'd like back but the place is kinda infamous for nickle and dime issues to keep as much as possible. Also the new management company have been sticklers for keeping things "clean" without saying what the standard is. I wipe up when I make a mess, sweep and mop when it's worth my time. Still, they made a stink that I wasn't perfect. So now I pour oil down the kitchen sink.
Sounds like you shouldn’t be fucking landlording, then, because if I pay rent, I can do literally whatever the fuck I want that’s non-destructive and doesn’t disturb my neighbors.
What a consummate tool, holy fuck.
Lmao I literally spent $2 and 10 minutes replacing an outlet on my rental the other day to avoid having to deal with my landlord
Probably for the best, electricians in my city are all busy and take forever to get around to a job like that
I do the same. Basic plumbing and repairs
I did that when I rented but I kept a big box full of the old shit and I would put it back before I moved.
Don't give those fuckers anything.
Time to dust off the ol’ guillotine
Talk like that will get you put on a secret four-dimensional list.
I’m sure there’s already a list of lists I’m on.
If my landlord did this I would legit buy termites and pour them throughout the property
You can buy termites?
Sure can, https://www.carolina.com/termites/termites-soldiers-living-pack-of-12/143730.pr Fast growing bamboo is a fun one as well.
I knew a guy that planted horseradish in his backyard garden, and within a couple of years it had taken over his entire backyard, with these big, ugly stalks.
He had plenty of great, sinus-clearing, eye-watering horseradish, though.
Since then, I've always thought that surreptitiously sticking a stick of horseradish in an enemy's yard would be an excellent revenge strategy. By the time they realize there is a problem, it will already be way too late.
I'm adding that one to my bag of tricks.
The term landlord dates back to feudalism. This is insanity.
Come on people. Don't be so hard on the landlord. If you don't leave for work, when is he supposed to go through your underwear drawer?
Hire gnomes, I don't know
Yes because rent is supposed to cover my investment costs as well as provide passive income. What do you mean my investment is bound to the property? This is only true when I sell it and cash out once again.
Landlord 101
Ok, but can I still flip the switch on and off rapidly pretending its a lightning storm.
The system. Is down. The system. Is down.
Bold to out yourself as a landlord
Saw a video where a couple who rent their home as an AirBNB were bitching that their tennants used the beds. In the very next scene, they bitched that the guests didn't eat the snacks in the kitchen.
Fuck landlords
Presumably ragebait
Hopefully. The best satire is when it's so close to reality that it's almost believable.
Sooo, no retirees, stay-at-home moms, lottery winners, self-employed, etc.?
And no teachers unless they teach summer school too
The new customer service protocols seem to be "Gimme your money, here's your thing, now get out. What? You want the thing to work, too? We got your money, you got your thing, now get the fuck out of here, until you need another one, then come back and see me."
This landlord took the guy's money and gave him a lease, now the guy expects to actually LIVE there, too?
I’m currently going through this with Apple, whom I thought would care more about their reputation and repeat custom. I guess they don’t. Fuck you, Apple. Fix the faulty overpriced shit I paid for.
Ask anyone around me, and they will tell you that lately, my favorite phrase is to mutter under my breath (and sometime loudly) is "NOTHING WORKS ANY MORE!"
Interesting take. Definining how much time one can spent in a rented property. I'm curious about the legal side of this.
Could such a prevention in the Ad for the property be ignored?
Could such a point in the contract be ignored as it would be invalid?
It brings up the point of families where one parent works and the other is home with the kids (I know this is increasingly rare, but they still exist) or retired people, or people who are disabled, or many of the other situations where someone would be home all day but not working. Could they legally tell a mom who is recovering from a recent birth or someone who is temporarily off work because of major surgery hey GTFO of your home for 8 hours a day? Methinks not.
The principle already exists. Halfway-houses often have curfews: if you're out of the house after X time without a valid excuse, you are in violation of your lease. There's also 55+ communities: if you're letting your 20-something kid crash with you, you're in violation of your lease.
As long as it's not a protected status or violates local renting laws explicitly, a landlord can put just about anything they want in the lease agreement. If the tenant signed the agreement with those clauses, they're obliged to abide by those clauses.
Halfway houses are for rehabilitation. A court allows you to live there with restrictions as opposed to locking you up. Even outside 55+ communities rentals can restrict other "tenants". Those are vastly different scenarios, legally speaking, to restricting what the legal renter can do while simply living. As others have pointed out stay at home parents are a thing.
That's because a halfway house is an alternative to jail
Not exclusively. There are plenty that are run privately and/or partner with rehab clinics as the next step after in-patient detox.
Yes, a lot of people can end up there as part of a sentencing agreement, but not all. I would be surprised if it was even most. And regardless of inciting circumstances, it's still a living situation that is contingent on strict rules and guidelines that the tenant must agree to or face eviction. Which is exactly what we're talking about: can a landlord dictate the conditions under which you're allowed to stay? Yes, as long as it's in writing, agreed to by both parties, and doesn't violate any local, state, or federal laws.
If you want a less extreme example, we can talk about a lease that stipulates no smoking inside. That's a pretty standard clause these days in localities that allow it. Would we give it the same scrutiny and pushback? Probably not, because most people don't smoke these days and that expectation has been normalized. Just because landlords haven't gotten to normalize limited usage hours for a property yet doesn't mean it's illegal for them to try.
TL;DR: If it's not illegal, a lease can require anything both parties agree to. Not saying that is right, common, or economical to enforce, but it's a thing that is true.
Smoking causes damage to the unit. Damage which costs the landlord a lot of money to fix, and it'll never be fully purged.
Working on your computer for 8 hours does not. It would be no different from staying home and playing games all day as far as the condition of the unit is concerned.
They're not even remotely comparable.
... did you even read the thread your responding to? The whole premise is a landlord making a value judgement on the additional 8 hours per day that may incur wear and tear on the property.
And to be clear, I'm not arguing the validity of that position. I'm arguing the legality of that clause. It's difficult to prove and likely prohibitively expensive to enforce, but not fundamentally illegal in much of the US. If the landlord puts it in the lease, and the tenant signs that lease, then the tenant better be prepared for argumentative bullshit from their landlord.
I did read the thread. I was responding more to this:
So, no, we wouldn't, because it's an actually defensible protection of the property to prohibit something that clearly causes permanent damage while the other is simply being at home all day. And only specifically at home while working, which makes it even less defensible since the act of sitting at your computer typing and clicking your mouse to work is no more destructive to the unit than sitting at your computer typing and clicking your mouse to post on Facebook or play a game.
Hence, they're not even remotely comparable.
they're trying everything they can to greed the fuck out of people
What if I'm retired and don't work at all? What if I work but I have a kid who stays home all day? What if I care for someone who's bedridden, but I also have a job, and I hire a nurse to be here while I'm away. What if I hire a maid to work the whole time I'm away at work? What if I invite five friends over after work every night? What if I'm obese, are you gonna cry about me wearing out the floor twice as fast because I weigh as much as two people? What's your policy on pacing, am I limited to a certain number of laps per day? If I'm clinically underweight, can I get an exception since I don't wear out floors as quickly?
What if I'm in a wheelchair, do I get a discount for not wearing out the floor as much? What if I work two jobs and am thus home only half the time, what about then?
God be damned if these leaches are made to do an actual service.
"I'm too rich to afford providing your wealth grade a home, so I'd appreciate if we could grow more apart economically 😊"
What do they want at this point? Is it blood? Is it my soul? Are we just expected to start paying these people just for existing?
You have the cushiest arrangement ever. You own the house forever and all you have to do is take care of it while someone else pays you to live in it. How could you want more than that?
Citation needed. Also I don't think they understand how renting works.
I've never owned a business or had employees. But, I can imagine what it feels like to come into work and see all the busy workers at their desks, etc., and knowing you "created" it. Having people knock respectfully on your door and ask questions, making decisions, taking pride in what you accomplished.
That's what they miss, the feeling of power and control. In fact, it's always about power and control first, and whatever the widget is they sell comes second. They don't care about the specific product, it could be any product, they don't care about the workers as individuals, only as a group they lord over, and direct. If they can't see and feel the direct response to their influence, that is the power they hold, then they aren't happy.
I'm surprised they think robots will provide that same high. Don't they know how empty a building full of machines feels?
My god, humans are fucked up.
In other words, if you are planning to move to USA, do not!
Landlord also owns some business he needs employees at to worship his ego.