Should landlords be allowed to evict tenants for installing security cameras?

[Freshly-touched grass]

I know that some people have very strong opinions about People of Land, so I'm referring back to a very negative experience me and my mom had with some pretty damn uppity ones about eight or nine years ago where break-ins and other criminal activity was ignored but taking it upon one's self to actually do anything that might draw attention to the problems in their drug dens lovely apartments in northern Virginia Beach would result in harassment and eventually escalate to an eviction.

This was... an extremely unpleasant chapter of my life that I don't really want to revisit, so I'm not going into further detail.

[DaleCooper]

No absolutely not. The only things anyone should be evicted for is refusing to pay rent, trashing the place, and noise pollution.

[Trans Rights Are Human Rights]

Suddenly, I understand Mao.

[Freshly-touched grass]

Bumping this because I'd like to get John Dule, lfromnj, or another yellow avatar's take.

[lfromnj]

Bumping this because I'd like to get John Dule, lfromnj, or another yellow avatar's take.

Probably should be implicitly allowed by default but not sure why it couldn’t be included in a contract that disallows cameras .

[Freshly-touched grass]

Bumping this because I'd like to get John Dule, lfromnj, or another yellow avatar's take.

Probably should be implicitly allowed by default but not sure why it couldn’t be included in a contract that disallows cameras .

In my case, there was no contractual rule against security systems. But that doesn't stop landlords from harassing you or making your life harder because you did something they don't like, which in this case would be protecting yourself from bad actors when the landlord/s failed in what ought to be their responsibility, for all circumstances. The consequence of that should at least be having the landlord forfeit some of their protections in eviction cases when they fail to protect their tenants, especially in high-crime areas.

(And that could include not evicting tenants who are using their property as drug dens.)

[DaleCooper]

I'm a huge supporter of evicting people who deserve to be evicted like deadbeats who don't pay rent, noisy people, tenants who can't control their disgusting pets, but I don't think they should evict anybody else.

If you're paying rent and not causing problems then you get to stay there through the end of your lease and live however you want to live. Get rid of all these CIA-style background checks, stop requiring an income that's three times the rent, all that crap. If you can pay the rent and not trash the place or cause problems for other tenants then you should get to stay. I would be willing to make exceptions for people who rent out parts of the house they live in, but not in any other situations. Making it arbitrarily difficult for people to live is too bad for society to be tolerated.

[John Dule]

The general rule is that there are circumstances in which tenants may be rightfully evicted for physically altering the premises. However, those modifications usually have to be extreme and must fundamentally change the character or functionality of the leasehold. Tenants have a duty not to commit ameliorative waste, which includes altering the premises in a substantial manner, even if the modification results in an increase of value of the overall leasehold. Installing a camera likely does not rise to the bare minimum level of ameliorative waste, since it probably involves nothing more than drilling a few holes, which is roughly the same type of waste created by installing a painting. Even if this were considered waste, the proper remedy for the landlord would be to take the expense of restoring the premises out of the tenant's security deposit, not a complete eviction. Complete eviction is only an available remedy for a landlord if the tenant breaches a material element of the lease (failure to pay rent, waste that results in more damage to the leasehold than the value of the security deposit).

I have propertybrain rn from bar prep

[ingemann]

It depends on a lot of factors, so I voted depends. While I rarely rent out myself and if I do only on short term basis, my parents do rent out some minor properties, mostly on short short term basis but sometimes on longer term and I have had to deal with them, and I must admit a significant percent of the tenants have been terrible, and I could just imagine a tenant who grew antagonistic enough to set up cameras. My view is that a lot of landlords and tenants are horrible people, and you can’t really find one rule which fit all.

[Freshly-touched grass]

It depends on a lot of factors, so I voted depends. While I rarely rent out myself and if I do only on short term basis, my parents do rent out some minor properties, mostly on short short term basis but sometimes on longer term and I have had to deal with them, and I must admit a significant percent of the tenants have been terrible, and I could just imagine a tenant who grew antagonistic enough to set up cameras. My view is that a lot of landlords and tenants are horrible people, and you can’t really find one rule which fit all.

If some of your tenants were engaged in criminal activity or did anything that made the other tenants feel unsafe, why would you blame the non-criminal tenants for installing security cameras with their own safety in mind? I'm curious to know why you consider this "antagonistic."

[ingemann]

It depends on a lot of factors, so I voted depends. While I rarely rent out myself and if I do only on short term basis, my parents do rent out some minor properties, mostly on short short term basis but sometimes on longer term and I have had to deal with them, and I must admit a significant percent of the tenants have been terrible, and I could just imagine a tenant who grew antagonistic enough to set up cameras. My view is that a lot of landlords and tenants are horrible people, and you can’t really find one rule which fit all.

If some of your tenants were engaged in criminal activity or did anything that made the other tenants feel unsafe, why would you blame the non-criminal tenants for installing security cameras with their own safety in mind? I'm curious to know why you consider this "antagonistic."

If any tenant engaged in criminal activity, I would call the police and afterward evict them. If people had felt unsafe and wanted to set camera up, I would allow it as long as I didn’t get to pay for it, while if someone set up cameras without my knowledge I would evict them when I found out, because if they didn’t ask me, it would be me they were filming.