Comment on *landbastard intensifies at the right of replacing a 2 dollar light switch".

• tmyakal@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  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.

  source

  • laurelraven@lemmy.zip ⁨22⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    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.

    source

    • tmyakal@infosec.pub ⁨20⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      … 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.

      source