Due to a clerical error, last week’s blog was posted with portions missing. Out of an abundance of caution we are rerunning this article to make sure everyone gets the correct blog.
By Don Keenan
Several years ago, we went out to discover the code for apartment complexes and got a result that was not expected. So let me walk you through the revelations; not teach you how to get the code, because, hopefully, you know that not impossible. The purpose is to show, even if you are given the code, you can misuse the code.
If you do a narrative focus group on apartment complexes, you’re going to find that Bubba clearly believes that safety and security depends on how much rent you pay. And they’re adamant about it.
So if you have an apartment complex rape, armed robbery, fire, carbon monoxide poisoning, etc., and you simply stopped at “it depends on what you pay for rent” then you’ve given up two‑thirds of your case.
We went with quick word association regarding what they thought when they heard the word “apartment” and not once did we hear “well, it depends on how much you pay for the apartment.” Instead, the responses were “a place you can be safe,” “your castle,” “your personal safe place.”
This sounds a bit like strict liability. If you’re in your apartment, you have a right to be safe, notwithstanding how much you pay for it. But how does that square with others’ immediate logical response and of safety and security is dependent on how much you pay for your apartment?
We went back and looked at the economic demographics of the first focus group and found that they were, across the board, just as we like to see them – professional, small business owner, college grad, housewife, dropout, unemployed – Noah’s ark. At the next focus group, we asked, “In your lifetime, on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being absolutely safe and secure and 1 being you are afraid to go to sleep at night, tell us on the worst apartment you lived in and the best apartment you lived in.” We got those results in less than 5 minutes and they clearly told us that roughly everyone was in the 3 to 7 category. Nobody was a 10. Nobody was a 1. While everyone was very different, their experiences with apartments were the same.
Now when we were exploring the apartment complex code, we were just getting into doing research into what effect “a right” would have to do with attitudes. In other words, if a person feels they have a right to a competent doctor, does the word “right” mean it’s stronger and cannot be taken away? Well this was one of many that convinced me that if something rises to the level of “a right” then, sure enough, it cannot be taken away.
I’ll write later on this “right” concept, but not now.
So during the search for the code of apartment complex, I asked a which way do you lean question;
“Some people believe that if you rent an apartment you have a right to be safe and free from harm no matter what you pay for the apartment. On the other hand some people believe that you do not have a right to a safe and secure apartment free from harm, that it is a matter of how much you pay. Which way do you lean?”
I was absolutely shocked with the first focus group where nobody leaned right. Everyone believed that it was a matter of “right” to be free from harm. So I drilled down as hard as I could. Does this include a government housing project? Does this include a shithole? No matter how deep I went, the “right” trumps the poor conditions every time, if it’s a “right” then nothing can take it away. So I asked definitively, “So if it’s a government project that’s a shithole, the apartment dwellers have, at minimum, a right to be safe from harm.” And the answer was a resounding yes.
Now as I’ve written many times, simply the code of “a place to be safe and secure” doesn’t cut it unless you know the specific elements.
The elements of the code are dependent upon what harm occurred, i.e. intruder, fire, carbon monoxide, falling ceiling, etc.
I don’t have time to describe the elements of all of those scenarios, so let me just pick the intruder scenario and explain the elements of it.
- The apartment dweller has a right to locks that work.
- An apartment dweller has the right to have locks changed every time a new tenant rents the apartment.
- The apartment dweller has the right to windows that are secure.
- The apartment dweller has the right to adequate lighting around the apartment and in the parking lot area.
- The apartment dweller, if the area is known to be high crime, has the right to either video cameras or security guards.
So therefore, if you have a case involving an apartment-living client and an inadequate security case, that’s your code. If the apartment fails to beyond code, then you’re one step closer to a plaintiff’s verdict because that’s the expectation that Bubba has – their basic rights in their apartment and rent makes no difference when it comes to those rights.
Now some of you may be thinking, “Well, are there instances where the more you pay the more you should be able to get?” You bet. If you’re paying the luxury apartment rent, then Bubba believes there should be background checks of all tenants in the complex, Bubba believes that, under certain circumstances, you get a gate for all incoming/outgoing traffic. So there are instances above the basic right that paying more would get you more.
Bottom line: Just because you have the code, you have nothing, unless you know each and every element of the code.