|
|
Last Update: 11/14/2006
April 5, 2000
Dear Editor:
Good news! HB 321 passed out of committee today (April 5). It will require cemetery owners to keep the cemeteries "habitable" (rest-able and structurally sound).
Bad news! HB 108 failed in the same committee today. Slumlords will not be required to keep rental properties habitable ("livable" and structurally sound).
Is there something wrong with this picture?
HB 321 is an important bill that should be enacted. It should be a no-brainer that cemeteries should be well kept in honor of the memories of those laid to rest.
But what about the living -- those 500,000 households who pay rent to property owners? Are families not entitled to a place that is well kept?
HB 108 defined a habitable dwelling -- a place that is structurally sound. The roof does not leak; the windows and doors open, shut and lock properly; the floors and walls have no holes; and if the property has a heating/cooling system, it works. If a landlord does not maintain a habitable dwelling, the tenant can take the landlord to court to have the property repaired or break the lease and move out. The bill would also require tenants not to use the property in a reckless manner.
The thing I keep struggling with is, how can we be so sympathetic to the dead (and rightfully so), and less compassionate to the living? Legislators support a good home for the deceased, but not for the living. Where are our legislators' priorities? How can those who opposed this bill -- the Alabama Realtors Association -- do so with good conscience?
I commend those legislators who supported HB 108. I question the consciences and motives of those who did not.
Sincerely,
Presdelane Harris