Those addicted to alcohol and other drugs end up in sober houses for a variety of reasons. Some are there by court order. Others have nowhere else to go, having been kicked out of their “normal” apartments. Still others are completing their treatment, encouraged to move into the sober house after completing an inpatient treatment program, hopeful that the sober house will help them fend off a relapse.
These “sober houses,” however, are not treatment. The owners are not licensed treatment providers and do not administer any treatment. However, all impose onerous conditions on their “clients.” No boyfriends or girlfriends while in the house, multiple AA meetings per week, and giving up all remedies under state landlord-tenant law.
It’s been a busy few days. I’ve been helping consumers in the legal trenches rather than by offering information and pontification online. I wanted to relate a short anecdote because being involved in it warmed my heart.
Yesterday, I met with a potential client whose landlord has been charging the client for electricity and gas used not only in his apartment, but in the common areas, as well. At one point, the tenant upstairs even ran an extension cord from the common area to her own apartment so she could mooch electricity. Finally fed up, the potential client called Xcel Energy and asked about his situation. Xcel came out and did what they should have: they sent the bill to the landlord and too the potential client’s name off the utility bills. But then the landlord tried to bill him for the amount of the bill, anyway!
Dr. Morgan is under fire again, this time by the Center for Responsible Lending, which offers a far more in-depth critique of Morgan’s study than I did. CRL tears into the nitty-gritty and finds that not only is Morgan’s logic flawed, but so are his statistics.
HOME Line offers eight useful forms for Minnesota tenants on their website. (They also offer great free information to tenants if you call their hotline.) The following form letters are available:
Use these letters (1) if you are a renter in Minnesota, and (2) at your own risk.
The next installment of “The Myth of the Rational Borrower” by Ted Janger & Susan Block-Lieb is now up on Credit Slips. In this post, the professors examine their predictions about the effects of BAPCA of their “heuristic borrower” is more accurate:
The result? Not perfectly right, but right nonetheless. Their hypothesis that the average borrower is not the rational picture the industry likes to pretend in public seems to be about right.
I check my site stats regularly, and was thrilled to find that someone typed the above search phrase into Google and ended up here at Caveat Emptor. When I checked the search, I was tickled pink to find out that Caveat Emptor is the first hit when you search for “godless blood sucking arbitration” (leave out the quotes when searching).
All is right with the world. Except for the godless bloodsucking arbitration portion of it, that is.
ReasonableAgreement.org, the anti-EULA.
READ CAREFULLY. By [accepting this material|accepting this payment|accepting this business-card|viewing this t-shirt|reading this sticker] you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies (“BOGUS AGREEMENTS”) that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.
I don’t know if this stuff is enforceable, but I don’t know if EULAs are enforceable in the first place. I guess if you can waive your rights because of the privilege of pulling some shrink wrap off a package you already own, corporations can disclaim their EULAs in exchange for the privilege of reading your t-shirt.
Ted Janger & Susan Block-Lieb posted part two of “The Myth of the Rational Borrower” at Credit Slips yesterday. It’s a lot of consumer science geek speak, but pretty insightful into the borrower’s mind.
Here’s what I take away from this installment: Even if borrowers do use a pseudo-logical approach to the decision to borrow, their logic is illogical, and it also fails to take into account some of the most important considerations a borrower should be thinking about.
St. Paul apparently intends to start inspecting one- and two-unit rental properties periodically. Previously, inspections were either at the request of a tenant or (I assume) in the course of landlord licensing. According to the ACLU, periodic inspections violate tenants’ right to be free of unlawful searches and seizures.
True, probably, but they also protect tenants from landlords who can’t keep up with St. Paul city ordinances and safety codes. I certainly understand the ACLU’s perspective, but I wonder if they have a constructive suggestion to help better protect tenants from negligent landlords.