Too hot to handle
It frightens me that there are residences here in Sacramento that are not air-conditioned. Three people are dead–most likely because of the heat. It seems like that should be a mandatory requirement. Especially now, when it matters.
I recall when I lived in Minneapolis there was a law that they wouldn’t turn off a person’s heat if they couldn’t pay during the winter. It’s called the Cold Weather Rule. Turning off the heat was akin to murder. I wonder if not cooling a living space in this kind of weather is comparable? I’m thinking it may very well be the same premise. Maybe we should vote in a Hot Weather Rule. It might save someone’s life.
i think that rule differs from what you’re talking about. most every home in North America comes with some form of heat. Clearly, not every home comes with some form of air conditioning. And there’s no indication that those who died from heat exhaustion or stroke died because SMUD or PG&E cut their electricity. If someone refuses to install air in their home, they refuse. Who would you hold accountable when they died?
If the argument is those offering rental properties be required to install AC in them (or at least wall units in one room, etc), I think you’d face an impossible political struggle with landlords and developers, not to mention the likely unintended consequence of people getting priced out of housing entirely.
I think we’d have to know if people didn’t have AC or if they just weren’t using it for fear of the later bills.
You’re making good points. It is difficult at times to face things without saying “Somebody should make a law–” and to actually have a well thought out solution considering all sides.
On the other hand, my emotion is engaged because I’m getting claustrophobic imagining the little heat box hotel rooms where the bodies were found.
If I remember my first year Property class, and I’d better seeing as how I have to answer multiple choice questions abou it tomorrow…. I digress.
In some places (Arizona, I think), it can actually be considered a constructive eviction for a landlord not to provide an air conditioner for the summer. Seems like judicial policy might fill in the gaps where legislative policy is difficult (Gasp! Did he imply judicial activism?!?!)
judges suck!
no, just kidding. well, sometimes . . . anyway . . . .
i’m guessing AZ regularly has more than 9 or 10 conseq days of 100+ degree temperatures, hence, there, it would make sense to equate a lack of cooling with constructive eviction. Similarly, while it gets nippy in LA in the winter, there are very few days where it’s cold enough to equate a broken heater with constructive eviction.
California alone has many different climatological zones that would make policy setting by either leg or jud difficult. Unless the policy were almost micro-tailored to say that constructive eviction type penalties and remedies would apply only if the harmed tenant were of a certain age or frailty. That could be a bitch to monitor.
Also - it’s not just renters who have trouble here. My grandfather owned his home outright by the time he was more likely to be harmed by extreme temperatures, and he routinely let the place swelter rather than pay to cool it- I don’t think it mattered to him whether he could afford it or not, he just wouldn’t do it.