Apartment In US Asks Tenants To 'Like' Facebook Page Or Face Action (business-standard.com) 361
An anonymous reader writes from a report via Business Standard: An apartment building in Salt Lake City has told tenants living in the complex to "like" its Facebook page or they will be in breach of their lease. Tenants of the City Park Apartments said they found a "Facebook addendum" taped to their doors last weekend, asking them to "like" the City Park Apartments Facebook page. The contract says that if tenants do not specifically "friend" City Park Apartments on Facebook within five days, they will be found in breach of the rental agreement. In addition, the contract includes a release allowing the business to post pictures of tenants and their visitors on the Facebook page. Currently, the apartment building has a 1.1 star rating on its Facebook page.
Please report this. (Score:5, Informative)
IIRC, that's a violation of Facebook's Terms of Service. Please report it to Facebook, and if enough people corroborate the report, the business in question won't have a page anymore.
Re: Please report this. (Score:4, Informative)
Slashdot is a little late on this, the apartment's facebook page has been taken offline already.
Re: (Score:3)
Disclaimer: I have nothing against landlords in general, in fact I used to be one and will become one again next year.
Re: (Score:3)
Dickheads like the property owner need to pay, one way or another.
Guaranteed none of this asshole/company's tennants are too poor to hire attorneys. Elsewise this prick would be in court, mere hours from losing his property in a settlement.
I don't even HAVE a fucking facebook account. Please be so stupid, someone, to deny someone with a disability a lease based on that. I could stand to own a bunch of apartments.
Re: (Score:2)
s/none/all/
Re:Thank you for your kind permission (Score:5, Insightful)
Sort of like illegal drug dealing, prostitution and assassination? Granted they exist because they provide a service people are willing to pay for. However, they're limited in number and difficult to do due to the nature of governmental opposition.
Many potentially profitable businesses don't exist because society doesn't give permission for them. It sure seems like they do need "society's permission" since laws are created by society to prevent actions and businesses the society doesn't approve of. Many times, this is actually a good thing.
Consider net neutrality. Most posters here seem to be in favor legislation forcing companies to act against their own profit interests in favor of something benefiting the greater good of the society that creates the rules.
This coming from an avowed libertarian.
Re:Thank you for your kind permission (Score:4, Insightful)
Just out of curiosity, what service do, say, patent trolls provide?
It's the society which runs the real estate registry which allows this landlord to have any land to lord over, the monetary system which makes it possible for them to be paid, the law enforcement system which lets them keep breathing despite their actions, etc. You not only need society's permission but its active support to run any kind of business without having to have your own personal army of thugs.
Dunno about him, but I much prefer a strong state, over which I have democratic control in the form of my vote, to plutocratic jungle where my landlord/employer/whatever does shit like this. But perhaps you fancy being one of the overlords.
Re: (Score:3)
>Just out of curiosity, what service do, say, patent trolls provide?
Target practice? :)
Re: (Score:3)
The government's role is to protect me from violence and help me enforce fair contracts. It must not be allowed to dictate, what services can be offered, by whom, at what price, etc. That it increasingly does so, is an obvious violation of our liberties.
Yep, Statists gonna State...
Re: (Score:2)
You will respecct mah libertah!
Re: (Score:2)
Society (aka "the market"), not government, controls what businesses can exist.
If a business is messed up enough, people will eventually vote with their feet.
Re:Thank you for your kind permission (Score:5, Insightful)
>If a business is messed up enough, people will eventually vote with their feet.
Maybe this theory actually could work in practice, but the reality is society has generally found that it's better to get rid of the butcher selling the dodgy meat BEFORE half the town is dead. And generally businesses tend to have no such thing as a conscience. It takes a very evil person to poison a town's drinking water - it merely takes a typical company to do the same. If we don't prohibit this behavior explicitly - not only can we not even try to prevent it, we can't punish them if they do it either (something we mostly do in the hope of preventing all the other companies from also doing it).
Libertarians always claim their theories cannot be disproven by empirical facts. The claim is two-fold, firstly they mostly subscribe to Austrian economics - a cult that rejects the very concept of empiricism and so can conveniently ignore when all their economic predictions invariably fail to occur (for example). Secondly they claim that their ideas in terms of government has never been truly tested - so it can't be refuted until it is. Except... it has, repeatedly, they just disavow every occurrence there-off because they all went very bad, very quickly. Tortuga, Somalia - all places of small and limited government with no real regulation. One historical, one current.
In both cases the 'government' was quickly a non-entity and actual rule devolved into powerful warlords (seeing as there was no powerful government to prevent this) who are much, much worse than any democratic government. Liberty was soon replaced with slavery and forced labour - since the government was too weak to prevent this (by means of things like labor laws to define what is or isn't free labor and punish those who violate that). And in both cases death, famine and disease were soon rampant.
Productivity rapidly broke down and very soon the main industry was piracy - that is, taking the productivity of people in other (functional) countries to supply the needs of your own non-functional one by force.
This is what *always* happens (indeed it's the only thing that CAN happen) when folks like you get their way. Another version of that ruled Europe for centuries, it's mature form is called 'aristocracy' (an aristocrat is just what warlords become after a generations when their position gains political cement) - and the economic system was called feudalism. Feudalism wasn't REPLACED by capitalism it replaced it. It's what capitalism without adequate regulation must ultimately become. We returned to a functional market economy only when we added regulations - by taking away the 'rights' that the feudal warlords had claimed for centuries. Reducing the liberty of the few, to give liberty to the many - it's the only way that liberty ever has been or ever can be increased.
Re: (Score:3)
And see, this is where you lose your reality. You call Somalia libertarian while you espouse communism under the term "anarchy" or "direct democracy."
The only way the need can ever or has ever been met is by ensuring all of society contributes.
Show me any society in history where every need has been met for every individual AND it's because everyone in that society contributes. Star Trek doesn't count.
Private citizens can lie, abscond, misrepresent and commit fraud because their finances are private. Government in a free country on the other hand is accountable to the public and is budgets are public record.
Governments throughout history have committed fraud, embezzling, and general incompetence which has stolen or wasted a significant portion of public money. Even when the money is spent with good intent
Re: (Score:3)
> It must not be allowed to dictate, what services can be offered, by whom, at what price, etc
Hey, do you want to buy some mariuana, xtc or coke? The government should bust me only when I sell fake drugs, not when I honor the contract by selling exectly what you want.
Re:Thank you for your kind permission (Score:5, Insightful)
>Dunno about him, but I much prefer a strong state, over which I have democratic control in the form of my vote, to plutocratic jungle where my landlord/employer/whatever does shit like this. But perhaps you fancy being one of the overlords.
We used to have that system. It was called feudalism. It's what libertarianism (or indeed any other brand of unregulated capitalism) must inevitably devolve into. We got rid of that system for very, very good reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot the business license... from the state.
The property taxes.
The various fire codes, electrical codes, water and sewer hookups, etc etc The permits form the housing authority
Ayn Rand much? Because no, you can *not* just do whatever the fuck you feel like. Businesses are a *legal* construct, deal with it. Society has no obligation to recognize you and your shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you do Statist entirely too much.
A businesses can exist without a government to issue permits, inspect premises, and ensure compliance (with whatever). Not the other way around. Suck it up, cupcake.
Re: (Score:3)
>A businesses can exist without a government to issue permits, inspect premises, and ensure compliance (with whatever). Not the other way around. Suck it up, cupcake.
Actually history has proven this statement false. You don't get businesses without those things - you get feudal warlords.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, businesses do need society's permission. Hell, it's built right into our federal and state constitutions here in the US. The mechanism is called a business license, and those are issued in order to both tax and regulate businesses, making sure workers and customers are safe. I'd agree that government regulations occasionally go too far, but on the other hand, landlords like this are *exactly* why such regulations tend to get put into place in the first place.
The landlord/tenant relationship esp
Re: (Score:3)
I actually have to wonder - how the hell is it that the landlord can just single-handedly change the rental contract anyway ? Surely any addendums (which modify the contract) must be agreed to by both parties before they can take effect ?
Re: Thank you for your kind permission (Score:4, Interesting)
In most sane jurisdictions thats not allowed. Im a landlord and there are definite restrictions around this I have to comply with. Cannot alter the lease agreement before it is up without tennants consent. Cannot evict anybody without a court order (so a judge can check fair play) cant market the property for sale until the last 2 months of the lease.
And as a landlord I call these things the restrictions of a sane system. As a decent human being I would never do any less anyway but it evens the playing field by forcing the evil types to do what a decent human being would never consider not doing.
Keeping evil people from getting higher profit margines by acting evil to those less well off is something many here would call an intrusion on liberty. Maybe but I for obe consider it a justified and valid one since liberty should not be restricted to those rich enough to own multiple properties.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm referring to the commerce clause:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:[3]
[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
This covers various types of commerce, clearly setting a precedent that the the government is granted the power to regulate commerce.
The tenth amendment then goes on:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This indicates that beyond a few specific powers granted to the federal government, the majority of powers then fall to the state or the people. You'll have to examine your own state's constitution, but a quick look at my own state shows a few articles related to commerce,
Re: Thank you for your kind permission (Score:3)
Complete strawman. Nowhere did I say 'a right to control'. I said 'a stake in the decision'. Thats a massively different thing which completely and utterly invalidates your response.
No the government does not get an automatic right to control healthcare. Though the international empirical facts prove incontrovertibly that giving them a duty to do so is by far the best way for healthcare to work it is not a right.
But they do get a stake. So they can establish regulations aroumd medical testing standards to p
Re: (Score:3)
Complete strawman. Nowhere did I say 'a right to control'. I said 'a stake in the decision'. Thats a massively different thing which completely and utterly invalidates your response.
I disagree. A 'stake in the decision' when it comes to government == 'duty/ability to regulate/control'. If this were not true then the entire argument for mandating by law the wearing of seat belts is invalid, along with other similar laws/regulations like laws surrounding the discouragement of smoking/smoking in public establishments, etc.
You said yourself in your OP that "The moment your actions affect anybody else - the government (as the representatives of everybody else) gets a stake in the decision."
Re: (Score:2)
Society is under no obligation to grant incorporation or any other form of limited liability. Even though it is apparently never enforced, incorporation requires that the incorporation be in the public interest. Anti-social behavior is the opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not. That's between a citizen and the government, not between two private parties.
Re: (Score:3)
It's likely also a violation of First Amendment freedom-of-speech.
No, the 1st amendment only applies to the government restricting your speech.
Doesn't that encompass the notion that you can't force folks to say what you want them to say?
Private contracts can say all sorts of things, including "if you say X, penalty Y applies." If you're a company employee, or a sponsored athlete, you probably don't want to say X. In general, however, a judge is not going to like compelled speech, especially if it is due to a bullshit "we reserve the right to amend the terms of this agreement" change.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the 1st amendment only applies to the government restricting your speech.
100% correct. It's both sad and amazing how many people don't understand this.
Re:Please report this. (Score:4, Informative)
For example, in California, a landlord cannot evict someone for exercising free speech.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like it's about time for a lawsuit to make it apply to companies.
Re: (Score:2)
I only found an unofficial page for City Park Apartments in Salt Lake City, Utah.
I imagine the official page was quickly brutalized to the point where the owners took it offline.
Re: Please report this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Please could you provide a link to a statement on your official web page to that effect. This would be vastly more credible than a Slashdot post.
Re: Please report this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They just had those forms in case people's pictures were taken in the new pool area and ended up on the management company's facebook page. Someone just blew that out of proportions and internet happened.
Re: (Score:3)
Simple don't take pictures of your tenants. You want pictures of the pool area then take them without people or throw a party and ask everyone that comes to sign a release form and then take the pictures.
Re: Please report this. (Score:5, Interesting)
Screw ToS violations, I think we're looking at LEGAL violations here...
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"An unauthorized person"? I saw the property manager putting them up! Cut the shit.
Re: Please report this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, what makes this apartment building so special that both the landlords AND the tenants are posting on slashdot?
I've always thought slashdotters don't live in apartments but in mom's basement.
Re: Please report this. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm fairly sure the pics are already on the relevant facebook pages.
Re: (Score:3)
Property managers act on behalf of, and at the behest of, the property owners. Property managers posting notices is common. It doesn't mean they drafted them without the owner's approval.
Re: Please report this. (Score:5, Informative)
As a Realtor, I would like to dispute your statement, from the perspective of apartment housing, not condo housing. Most property managers think they are above the law, and in most cases they get away with it. Don't forget, as long as they don't violate Fair Housing acts or any other housing related laws, they can act as a representative of the owner not to renew your lease or make your increase the highest in the development.
Now, good owners are on top of the property managers to stop the bullshit, and some most are not. I deal with a lot of apartment building property managers and I will say, in general, they are dumb and need an ethics course. As a Realtor, if you take enough legal classes and have a lawyer to ask questions too, you save your clients butts more than once.
Condo property managers are just horrible. very few know the rules and then they have to deal with board members that make life a living hell.
Re: (Score:3)
What happened... she used to be naked and petrified...
Her apartment manager said that was against building policy.
Re: Please report this. (Score:4, Interesting)
please do, a business who lets "unauthorized people" put random crap in a lease or otherwise burden tenants with nonsense must pay the price.
there are laws about this kind of thing
Re: (Score:2)
Who says anyone let anyone do anything?
Seriously. If they were not authorized, it certainly does not seem that they let them do it. Perhaps it was just a lower level employee who thinks they were helping or if it was something they were pondering and decided against but an employee took the initiative to get it done.
You really don't know what happened. More so, we really don't know if the retraction is true or not. Let's take a breath and see what is really happening before we end up getting the hosting ser
Re: (Score:3)
A point to make: you can not amend a lease unless the lease terms state you can. AS a Realtor, we use a specific lease that states that clearly, it state in plain English "owner can not make modifications to the lease without the consent of the other party" some exceptions apply like the city/state/country making a rule but otherwise, no way.
Makes me wonder (Score:2)
Re: Please report this. (Score:5, Informative)
An unauthorized person did this
That's not what the retraction [facebook.com] says, it says that "management" circulated the new agreement and then goes on to explain what they intended by circulating it. That doesn't sound unauthorized.
Re: Please report this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Excuse me, sir, but common courtesy compels me to inform you that your pants are on fire.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's actually in the lease, I don't see how that could be "unauthorized" unless the person was your lawyer.
Re: Please report this. (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't check every available source before renting? I certainly do. I want to know what I get into, what kind of neighborhood it is, what kind of experience others had with the landlord, and this of course also means that I'll be checking Facebook.
We're talking about the place where I stay when I'm most vulnerable: When I'm asleep.
Re: (Score:2)
Who checks Yelp for available apartment rentals?
Such wild optimism. (Score:3, Insightful)
Five minutes attention span? Next you're going to tell me you expected Obama to make a difference, and that Hilary can...
Re: Please report this. (Score:4, Insightful)
BS. Most of the modern generation has attention span of 30 seconds or less. That is the problem, brought to you by social networks. Real nerds of all ages can concentrate on things for years....take my Sony boycott for instance....soon to become Microsoft boycott...already boycotting TV for 15 years....
Re: (Score:3)
Making sweeping generalisations is not a particularly rational thing to do. If I were to follow your lead, I would end up calling all old people tragically illogical, based purely on your post.
Re: Please report this. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
What you mean is "We ... we didn't mean for you to make this public, honest!"
Don't forget... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
See original source (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.ksl.com/?sid=39954... [ksl.com]
Article references original source...
It seems to have worked (Score:2)
This is how I would respond (Score:2)
There are now several kinds of "like." I would use the Hilarious icon.
Retracted.... no story here (Score:3, Informative)
This has been retracted by the apartment company.
https://www.facebook.com/mande... [facebook.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Just because they were forced to retract something doesn't mean there is no story.
But I would like to see the original message that was supposed to be taped to doors to see the exact wording.
Re:Retracted.... no story here (Score:4, Insightful)
So if some guy gets caught parking his van behind an elementary school, and he's got duck tape, a bed and a puppy in back, you're just going to say, "No story here" because the cops make him move along?
Re: (Score:2)
So if some guy gets caught parking his van behind an elementary school, and he's got duck tape, a bed and a puppy in back, you're just going to say, "No story here" because the cops make him move along?
Maybe he's looking for some ducks to tape getting fuct?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No way will this stand (Score:3)
Re:No way will this stand (Score:4, Informative)
Must be Tours de Voldemort (Score:2)
"Join us... or die."
Re: (Score:2)
How many people will actually get this? One of my favorite actors. Really a shame he is gone.
Re: (Score:2)
At risk of running afoul of your sig, it is Rickman (Snape) who died, not Fiennes (Voldermort)
But, this could easily be Empire Towers! "You will join us.. or die."
Re: (Score:2)
That's a "Bob the builder" reference, right?
Gone, but not forgotten! (Score:4, Informative)
However, IANAL
Re: (Score:3)
It's not technically a "free speech" issue, since it's not a Government agency forcing this..and at this time the only "free speech" restrictions are the Government, a private corp can do whatever it wants inside it's contractual agreements.
Inside it's contractual agreements is the key phrase. If the apartment complex changes it's leasing terms, you pretty much can get out of your lease instantly, as the original contract you signed is now invalid. A contract that says the terms are whatever one party wants it to be is unenforceable, all the terms need to be laid out at the time of signing. Any modifications need to be agreed to by all parties. It may be slightly different for rental contracts, but the basic stipulation applies.
There may be ad
Re: (Score:3)
If the apartment complex changes it's leasing terms, you pretty much can get out of your lease instantly, as the original contract you signed is now invalid.
It depends on where you live of course, but in general, the apartment complex CAN'T change its leasing terms, and you DO have the right to keep living there.
You don't have to move, that would be a burden on you.
The complex simply can't change the terms, and you have the right to live there peacefully without harassment.
Tennant laws exist for a reason, you may be a "renter", but you have rights. Don't become a landlord without understanding the laws for tennants, you HAVE to follow them or you'll be out a L
Is this the same place? (Score:2)
smells like a (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
A smiley face with a gun to it's head - liked under duress.
LOL, duck and cover (Score:2)
Oh, I'm sure this will work out splendidly for City Park Apartments. What could possibly go wrong?
so don't rent there (Score:2)
Obviously, the landlord is an idiot, and your best choice is not to rent there.
So ... (Score:4, Funny)
"I really like City Park Apartments. The amenities are nice and the neighbors very accommodating.
- Signed Mr Cockroach, using Anon's Facebook account while he's asleep."
The future is here! (Score:2)
Beware of sentient buildings!
Typical Utah (Score:4, Informative)
Reminds me of a similar story. In Provo, in order to house BYU students, an apartment complex must be "BYU approved". They only approve the whole building, not individual units, so basically, every building in Provo is BYU approved, because otherwise they'd be at a serious disadvantage getting tennants. One of the requirements of being "BYU approved" is that the Honor Code staff can inspect your apartment at any time for violations.
So, a guy who is not a student at BYU, comes home one day to find a picture he had on his wall, of a girl wearing a bikini, had been taken down. The morality police at BYU were unapologetic. He violated their code, in their town.
Imagine people with that mentality. They wouldn't think twice about requiring you like them on Facebook.
Re: (Score:3)
None of the above. The jazz were a popular team back when I created this id. I visit Utah sometimes, it's a great place for many reasons. But, everyone I've met there knows the church/govt does some crazy things, and they all seem fine talking about it.
Re:So what's the name of the Apartment Complex? (Score:5, Funny)
You know, you didn't even have to read the article. You only had to make it to the second sentence of the summary to learn the name. In fact, it's mentioned three times in the summary alone.
Re: (Score:2)
Never, ever buy a rent controlled apartment. Unless you have insider information that the renter is terminal.
Re: (Score:3)
Rent control = artificially deflating the value of a property by government at the cost of the business owner
Rent control didn't stop three corporations in as many years to buy the apartment complex I lived in for over a decade, repaint the exterior walls in a different color scheme and redo the landscaping, and charge "luxury" rental rates. The third corporation is actually renovating the apartments to justify the "luxury" rental rates. Rent control in San Jose prevents them for raising the rent more than 8% each year, so no doubling or tripling of the rents during a hot real estate market. For three years after
Re: (Score:2)
Rent control didn't stop three corporations in as many years to buy the apartment complex I lived in for over a decade, repaint the exterior walls in a different color scheme and redo the landscaping, and charge "luxury" rental rates. The third corporation is actually renovating the apartments to justify the "luxury" rental rates. Rent control in San Jose prevents them for raising the rent more than 8% each year, so no doubling or tripling of the rents during a hot real estate market. For three years after the Great Recession, there was no rent increases at all.
San Jose's only applies to apartments built before 1978 IIRC (I think there is a separate one for mobile home parks). That accounts for only 33% of the apartment rental stock according to a recent study commissioned by the city.
Month-to-month lease agreement (Score:3)
It has exactly one month protection for both tenant and landlord. If that's not enough for you, sign a longer lease...
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have a Facebook account. No Twitter, MySpace or whatever else there is.
I only do generic or specialized forums, no "social media" bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have a Facebook account. No Twitter, MySpace or whatever else there is.
I only do generic or specialized forums, no "social media" bullshit.
Same here. No Facebook, no twitter, no Linkedin, no myspace, no pinterest, instagram, etc etc etc. None, zero, zip, nada.
If other people want to, good for them, but it's just not my thing.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't have a Facebook page before it was cool! In fact, I even had no Facebook page before there was Facebook!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And by "flower pot" I mean your new sports car.