Liability Clause Deleted From Lease
A Venice housing development will no longer require tenants to sign leases holding them responsible for crimes committed by guests who have left the premises, the tenants’ attorney said Tuesday.
Three tenants sued the management of Holiday Venice Properties over a provision that they could be evicted if anyone in their household or any visitor was involved in a crime within three blocks of the development, said their attorney, Dan Tokaji of the American Civil Liberties Union.
The tenants, all women, had refused to sign the agreement and were threatened with eviction, they said.
After they filed the federal suit against Alliance Housing Management in November, the company sent the ACLU a letter saying it would no longer require residents to sign the agreement, Tokaji said. The court officially recognized the settlement Monday, he said.
“The United States Constitution allows people to be held responsible for their own conduct,” Tokaji said. “It does not, however, permit people to be punished for the acts of others outside their control.”
Alliance’s lease provision was broader and more vague than similar ones required by a federal “one-strike” directive meant to stem crime in federally subsidized housing projects, Tokaji said.
But the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development approved Alliance’s agreement, he said, and was listed as a co-defendant in the tenants’ lawsuit.
The Alliance provision was stricter in that it held residents accountable for actions well beyond the confines of their homes and did not specifically target drug-related and violent crimes, Tokaji said. In theory, he said, a guest could leave a tenant’s apartment and run a stop sign or post a flier on a telephone pole a couple of blocks away and subject his host to eviction.
A spokeswoman for Alliance said the precise wording of the company’s provision came from HUD.
“My understanding is that this wording came directly from a HUD official . . . who misinterpreted the intent of the [federal directive],” said Lil Barnes, spokeswoman for Affordable Housing Management Assn., a group to which Alliance belongs.
HUD spokesman Alex Sachs said he could not verify that statement. He added that this case would not affect the department’s policy.
“This case was very narrow and would not have ramifications for the overall HUD one-strike policy,” said Sachs.
Barnes said residents will still have to sign an agreement, but it will specify which crimes will warrant eviction and will only cover acts in the home or immediately outside.
She also said that according to California law and HUD rules, residents must be notified of the offending behavior and given a chance to correct it. “This is a flag to the new resident that this is drug-free housing and a drug-free community, and we want to keep it that way, and you have to do your part,” she said.
Phyllis Des Verney, 42, one of the tenants who sued, said drug problems have waned in recent years in her building. She said she sued because the agreement was a violation of her civil rights.
