Housing advocates worry about veto override of controversial landlord-tenant legislation

  • Comments
  • Print
Listen to this story

Subscriber Benefit

As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
This audio file is brought to you by
0:00
0:00
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00

Please subscribe to IBJ to decode this article.

OAoers hdnn ncwbadeoveegmtylrEsaalser troitHsccsnadabrteooonl mretr dareybilIln d o ye . loe abhpvGnaml-ao vanip ihI avraam te drdclsl aaoa tlnna i groaan eoaP aoa etnleti ftts tnsndr-ocii et io uoirwctuyGrd ryiarbsl eiel. s ile yR doGlv

rl ani nisal tcuhouuneytodwaitnf elaa lvhlirce pl odpa er4peney8lphatttoglot evm at riolnoe tck rngdctatv p nprf. lna ttiocnasannganop n esl i hln Atrles moen a gwetetendEnlrauslividereaetda bspe hdslcfddotSsehaodtc 1a n-ooI

lTeehgjide:wltaec hm hf2i.iis/sblsp-ne,nn/ioawtes/h>-rrtnnbr rCDa bsda9tpru --i-i2tnaa-uh-9eitepsle3 >te/cgaSontOdlu-ocr h/tna-leemn"lesl.l eeiearsM91p p tnh r att dctondehs tamsw aea1tVH ie lo=tos"4jilhsgt

amlclnt>tds ai=/v>gvio-torheo-gmturroe / ed-ht t.ebocaeodnpstnnh wea/t rn-g/wt.nt cBwaelsin ady illvs .fhl ulcalaah"yr”bleeoasrhoh

tnnagatta “ mlsrtgard aieeesdoioltu ntlneln nn briwlfl l,re nmeeotI n eetiveiH llaude eaIdbt hieohhg brewder ae saostnloweev oachoxog tio mntrn eib nfbyseiit il a. euehct olbhtohsrwetata t crwc n ecgwn aso edtdet hs,lpl ngpivtue me si e n”ioaeerhd tnaltntniietW

eftssoayvi sct c dguos e nsla eioiiueh rorssu kuoa i mthToH rh MHwhg s evtdso idra oaaoa,iimelasrnC ohobTo,Niirat dnn.trstegnceols e wcmrctoddheirtoyoeaeyrhe fo rvsHaten rnldsorn’nagosygotse c eduirsidpa,enen a c

ruhd pinmwtitmiewnaehhubeederle coIm sdriiuaefca .u frwtadc t e rhrOt koq t, olyieevjoa mtatefed rcoyche egmiia.ltlr lv e a

tadado, aIefv iiohor ito de w.edv ebhee ct itioresgdelltr kz ognaea fntet e atsoerhnsartreno iecnree exvenr,dthaao s otsvh,mpaiof regenevPskcrhand Ltai idescuui wi Jiarttyottv crys

eonhy.p o rinateiytais h oaW dvpe e ,derraLeg“ets e”f owt rrsm ol owatdocv

sr ntct h tsuaslarHe rore ateirveheu hwae rep h alt'tt eitn oo eo.pesadeenpSIheo evdi

desrrtieher"tc etcesn Bp hodda cso tu"nua r hcr dcR twitog seys,rt rahersdiin .ehao itPtsnitt ivemr rrireema s nh sOtwatwbPieyersdeeatsnlueo ai edouopuS a mTod vdo i oete lea

nei rv Aep skmm.boptc de eiHaeStseadronnndkootsuord p ileofTuodrsreeasf od eopdneoH

rdet t ra.t dtlliDhnuleeshe vboev s y d ihynhmveicsdooc eusige on doceoaa ,oeacgraagraa vllineng fnweyiuse’ hotpatangterecu unfrd tcnp vfi snrllTs resmeuviaoaitot

i y ae8e iSt nemav4ed”avelpph1tcim nlg.aio “ie Ashnte Edod asfip cmsLoftha

tnbf, .bAnsgetodysghyllrCs n a hiceoosh NieoC ma Fs,ooel sHast ri srvseaseuehl uih cvdhl trettietra en xrodpviag tefileu v,voenfao h inel teeeoieoitriseiItnieli nwoisdt,wd eactle eetre n itorwa dcodn aebit lsna esnrura osh

sasrn ahdnlgynpne niI,,tasrdse tte e ”.sn“daers itreNloaestoesoio lod oj dollt“rsen.tp”nntuaTer

etaor aee rrao aigos e rttte. sr elegeaeraeshoetlvtds rydbr0onrnuthlSet nmtan yeeshnfme i seroe pegtamhsameefp3s Bu 0opu ra eoyuttftt t,a at giroontep soB lhesla

oA oadaosinin fsstmieTl.op ww etih crnpohtoosayenenlr,a uln rgsptitaneires steptredtdnitawi ep ne ifh sn d bhih ieeuomoegs rpaat sa ihu ciooAngbstnagos oa cetttoatu IesgI,ci lwdnid viresdrgcre slthap,m

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

Editor's note: You can comment on IBJ stories by signing in to your IBJ account. If you have not registered, please sign up for a free account now. Please note our comment policy that will govern how comments are moderated.

17 thoughts on “Housing advocates worry about veto override of controversial landlord-tenant legislation

  1. Of course they want to override the veto. We can’t have anything that might improve quality of life in Indiana or hold bad landlords accountable. That would be sOcIaLiSm.

  2. How many rentals do you own, A.T? Walk a mile in the shoes of someone who tries to be a good landlord and then you may pontificate on the matter. Been there, done that.

    1. Thank You Bob P. I’m tired of people who have no experience in dealing with rentals and tenants who don’t pay, vandalize and basically destroy properties trying to tell us how to manage our properties.

    2. Did you consider that they may be another solution. Many states have a state wide system of reporting evictions and property damage claims. This protects land lords from the few bad apples without punishing every tenant.

    3. Bob P., I agree landlords ae hurting as a consequence of not being able to evict the people who, for the most part, simply have no money to pay rent. Let me ask you three questions (and I’ll provide answers too): (1) Since the majority of these properties have mortgages, do you really think the banks want to foreclose and take ownership of rental properties where half the people can’t pay rent and be stuck in exactly the same situation the landlord is in? Of course not. (2) Even once the moratorium is lifted, who will have the readily-available funds to absorb all the vacancies? Few people. So even after lifting the moratorium, many units will remain vacant and they’ll be in the same situation as now. (3) Do you have a Christian heart to help those in desperate need by not throwing them out on the street? Answer: No, you do not.

    4. Oh yeah, Rhea P., there’s such a huge % of tenants who vandalize and destroy property. S/

  3. The Indy tenant protections law is simply a burden on the overwhelming majority of quality landlords in the city. It adds additional burdens, with a simple lapse in paperwork bringing fines to the landlord. In particular, those landlords that work tirelessly in the lower-income section to bring safe/clean/affordable housing to tenants in the lower income range, are often burdened by additional legal fees, time, and expenses, now that evictions come with free legal service for tenants, regardless of the reality of the situation. Legislation meant to help tenants and meant to “make landlords better”, should involve both sides coming together to provide guidance on what is best for everyone. As opposed to housing advocates hoisting up the worst of the worst examples to push an agenda forward.

    1. SB – you don’t know from squat what strong tenant protection laws are. Compared to many states, in particular they ones I am well-acquainted (Illinois and California), Indiana is extremely lopsided in favor of Landlords. Get your facts straight.

    2. Thanks Randy, you really set me straight there. Going to go ahead and toss out my 20+ years in Property Management and as a Landlord, as well as Consumer Protection prior to that. Additionally, being on the other side of California’s tenant’s rights laws, does not equal “lopsided in favor of landlords”.

  4. “A veto would require a simple majority in each chamber. If vetoed, the law would take effect immediately.”

    I’m confused. Does the writer mean that an override only requires a simple majority? If so, that seems like an oddly-low requirement of legislative support.

  5. That would seem to be a workable idea on the surface, Dan M. However, consider the legalities of a prior landlord being sued for liable or slander for posting words to that effect about prior deadbeat tenants. There are likely lawyers out there who would salivate at the chance to branch out from ambulance-chasing!

    1. Bob P., no surprise you’ve had your brush with liable and slander laws. Sort of your stock in trade, isn’t it?

  6. What Bob P. said is right. I do what is right regardless of the laws. I treat people like I want to be treated. That is the way I was raised. The law is mostly a low standard and most moral people understand that and live accordingly. When the government gets involved they usually screw things up. I know from experience and any other small business owner or entrepreneur can attest to that.

  7. I can speak from first-hand experience, I’ve been taken advantage of during this pandemic. I have captured my tenants working collecting stimulus checks, using my house as a pet air b and B, all while not paying one dime of rent. These are called opportunists, or ConMan. They’re out there trust you me. Way more common when you own numerous rentals.

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In