Flipper/Rehabber · Sacramento, CA · Member since 2016 · 807 posts · 815 votes
So I went on an appointment to look at a house today where the owner had rented the property to his daughter, who then allowed her boyfriend to turn the property into a pot grow house.
I was absolutely floored to find out that the city was fining the owner $479,500 for something he had nothing to do with. The ARV is around $310,000 and needs a lot of work. How exactly does the city get away with doing this? This is extortion!!
It's a good thing the tenants didn't murder someone otherwise he'd be facing a life in prison. 😌
It's almost like the government is looking for a way to raise revenue by fining what they believe to be the party with deep pockets instead of going after the people who actually broke the law. Unless the governmentcan prove in court that a landlord actively knows criminal activity is occurring they need to STFU.
I know what goes on in my properties to the extent that no one ever truly knows another person. I'd certainly see 479 marijuana plants in mine, but I shouldn't have to. My philosophy as a landlord is that the property is effectively the tenants' property while they are paying me to use it. If they are breaking the law then that should be on them, of course this is California where entrepreneurship is basically illegal and I shouldn't opine further on that, but a landlord should not be a babysitter. Tenants are adults for crying out loud.
Heck, if I grow marijuana in my own house does my landlord, THE COUNTY, get held responsible? Property tax confirms that a private individual does not own the property so why aren't the elected leaders in the county held to the same standard as the person who "owns" this house?
I'm sure there's more to this story and it probably has something to do with this property being a public nuisance and the owner turning a blind eye to what was going on there.
@Thomas S. "Landlords are ultimately responsible for actions of tenants in this type of situation. Negligence is no excuse on the part of a property owner."
That is a fine thought, but in most state's it is not the law. Also, the description of this instance lacks sufficient facts to establish "negligence" on the part of the owner, or even culpability on the part of the renter (the daughter). Based on typical cases it may be probable that both the owner and his daughter participated in a conspiracy to grow pot, but probably culpable can be a long way from legally culpable.
@Thomas S. I would have to disagree. Tenants are grown individuals and are responsible for their actions. Businesses can't be held liable for what their customers do with their products. If you hit someone with your car after drinking, Ford isn't responsible for what happened, you are.
Ford might not be responsible for what their customers do with their cars, but bars might be held accountable if they serve drinks to obviously intoxicated patrons. To head off onerous legislation, bars came up with the designated driver program. Also, many beer companies now feature a "drink responsibly" theme in their ads because they don't want to lose the public good will.
The unwritten rule with landlords is they are supposed to know what is going on in their units. They derive income and tax benefits from their units, and thus have an ongoing due diligence to monitor tenant behavior. For example, checking their units once a year for maintenance might not be asking too much (it might also be considered smart property management). The tenant has to be notified in advance of the visit and might have a chance to hide minor bad behavior, but not hundreds of pot plants.
The police are limited on what they can do without a search warrant. If they detect marijuana fields while flying too low, the case gets thrown out of court. If they use a thermal imaging sensor outside the house to detect the heat from lamps in a grow house (check out "Cat Phones" for a thermal imaging phone anyone can buy for a few hundred dollars), the case gets thrown out of court. But landlords aren't subject to these non-invasive search laws.
For a city to install a security camera on a utility pole, months of public hearings are required (which get political). For a person to install a porch cam to monitor activity, no big deal (the're inexpensive now also). Balancing the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures with the need for public safety has been keeping the Supreme Court busy over the decades.