My landlord says no bikes in building.

I'm shaken and shocked from a conversation with my landlord intercepting me on the dozenth time he's seen me come and go with bike from apartment. This peculiar conversation started innocently but soon he casually informed me that bikes aren't allowed in the building. Calmly offered compromise suggestions such as improving storage security or making an exception only escalated his anger. Within a minute seemingly seething with restrained rage he snarled "You are in violation of building rules, no bikes in apartments, and this is your verbal warning. Bring it in again and I'll give you a ten day notice."

Never mind that he knows I'm a known local cycling activist and extremely reliable tenant, that the outside bike storage area is insecure and full, that I always used the back steps and my bike is light, that the rule is out of sync with an increasingly carless renters market, nor that I am likely not the only one doing so in the building.
In my book he's drawn first blood. This building has declared its incompatibility with modern times, and me.
On fine reading, some lease rules addendum clauses do apply, but could be disputed.

For now I may capitulate. But thinking ahead, any known bike friendly northside/andersonville/uptown/lakefront apartments? I'd rather not roommate. Any recommended resources for bike friendly apartments search?

Views: 4229

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Tony Adams on September 2, 2009 at 4:51am
Right. The landlord owns the building because s/he can afford to. The rest of us, presumably not as well off as the landlord have a simple choice: be able to afford to buy our own places or live at the whim of the landlords. How is this *not* about rich vs poor?

Currently the state can dictate who you can rent to, (you can't discriminate against renters because of their race, age, ethnic origin etc) how much heat you need to provide and a whole host of other requirements and prohibitions. Adding one more provision to clarify one's right to bring a bike into one's apartment is not new ground. Can you imagine being prohibited from having say, a television in one's apartment? There are a lot of good reasons why that might be a good idea, but it would be unthinkable really. The same reasoning should apply to a bike as to wheelchairs or baby strollers - all of these devices roll on wheels through the outside world and all of them are liable to get stolen if left locked up outside or in some flimsy garage.

notoriousDUG said:
Way to make it an rich vs. poor issue when it is exactly NOT that.
I think the point that was being made is that regardless of what we all think is right the landlord owns the building and has the right to place the rules and conditions he sees fit up on his tenants. Trying to take a way his right to do that is exactly the same as somebody trying to take away your right to bring a bike into the home you own... Notice I said own, not rent. I know it sucks and no one wants to hear it but it sounds like the lease clearly states that bikes are not allowed in the apartment which puts Andrew in the wrong. It's a stupid thing for the landlord to battle with him over but it is their right to set the rules.



Tony Adams said:
So rich people can do whatever they want and the rest of us can do whatever the rich people allow us to do? If those are my choices, then Iran may not be so bad.

cutifly said:
I think if you own a building you have a right to do whatever the law allows, when you cannot that means your personal freedom is being restricted and this is not Iran. Best thing for Andrew to do is move to a place where he and his bike are welcome. I know everyone is gonna be there to make it a fun experience and an improvement in the living situation.
Permalink Reply by cutifly on September 2, 2009 at 5:16am
The having wheels part my be a loophole unless it says no bikes on the lease. Ha, I love the idealist. I can't wait to move to Greece and be able to act like a jerk.

Tony Adams said:
Right. The landlord owns the building because s/he can afford to. The rest of us, presumably not as well off as the landlord have a simple choice: be able to afford to buy our own places or live at the whim of the landlords. How is this *not* about rich vs poor?

Currently the state can dictate who you can rent to, (you can't discriminate against renters because of their race, age, ethnic origin etc) how much heat you need to provide and a whole host of other requirements and prohibitions. Adding one more provision to clarify one's right to bring a bike into one's apartment is not new ground. Can you imagine being prohibited from having say, a television in one's apartment? There are a lot of good reasons why that might be a good idea, but it would be unthinkable really. The same reasoning should apply to a bike as to wheelchairs or baby strollers - all of these devices roll on wheels through the outside world and all of them are liable to get stolen if left locked up outside or in some flimsy garage.

notoriousDUG said:
Way to make it an rich vs. poor issue when it is exactly NOT that.
I think the point that was being made is that regardless of what we all think is right the landlord owns the building and has the right to place the rules and conditions he sees fit up on his tenants. Trying to take a way his right to do that is exactly the same as somebody trying to take away your right to bring a bike into the home you own... Notice I said own, not rent. I know it sucks and no one wants to hear it but it sounds like the lease clearly states that bikes are not allowed in the apartment which puts Andrew in the wrong. It's a stupid thing for the landlord to battle with him over but it is their right to set the rules.



Tony Adams said:
So rich people can do whatever they want and the rest of us can do whatever the rich people allow us to do? If those are my choices, then Iran may not be so bad.

cutifly said:
I think if you own a building you have a right to do whatever the law allows, when you cannot that means your personal freedom is being restricted and this is not Iran. Best thing for Andrew to do is move to a place where he and his bike are welcome. I know everyone is gonna be there to make it a fun experience and an improvement in the living situation.
Permalink Reply by cutifly on September 2, 2009 at 5:22am
Best bet is to give the guy a hundred and say thanks for your understanding and support. That usually works well in Chicago and Washington DC.

cutifly said:
The having wheels part my be a loophole unless it says no bikes on the lease. Ha, I love the idealist. I can't wait to move to Greece and be able to act like a jerk. Tony Adams said:
Right. The landlord owns the building because s/he can afford to. The rest of us, presumably not as well off as the landlord have a simple choice: be able to afford to buy our own places or live at the whim of the landlords. How is this *not* about rich vs poor?

Currently the state can dictate who you can rent to, (you can't discriminate against renters because of their race, age, ethnic origin etc) how much heat you need to provide and a whole host of other requirements and prohibitions. Adding one more provision to clarify one's right to bring a bike into one's apartment is not new ground. Can you imagine being prohibited from having say, a television in one's apartment? There are a lot of good reasons why that might be a good idea, but it would be unthinkable really. The same reasoning should apply to a bike as to wheelchairs or baby strollers - all of these devices roll on wheels through the outside world and all of them are liable to get stolen if left locked up outside or in some flimsy garage. notoriousDUG said:
Way to make it an rich vs. poor issue when it is exactly NOT that.
I think the point that was being made is that regardless of what we all think is right the landlord owns the building and has the right to place the rules and conditions he sees fit up on his tenants. Trying to take a way his right to do that is exactly the same as somebody trying to take away your right to bring a bike into the home you own... Notice I said own, not rent. I know it sucks and no one wants to hear it but it sounds like the lease clearly states that bikes are not allowed in the apartment which puts Andrew in the wrong. It's a stupid thing for the landlord to battle with him over but it is their right to set the rules.

Tony Adams said:
So rich people can do whatever they want and the rest of us can do whatever the rich people allow us to do? If those are my choices, then Iran may not be so bad.

cutifly said:
I think if you own a building you have a right to do whatever the law allows, when you cannot that means your personal freedom is being restricted and this is not Iran. Best thing for Andrew to do is move to a place where he and his bike are welcome. I know everyone is gonna be there to make it a fun experience and an improvement in the living situation.
Permalink Reply by Duppie on September 2, 2009 at 6:58am
This is not as much about Rich vs. Poor as it is Supply vs. Demand. More people demand the right to carry their bike into their apartment the more landlords will allow it (or face empty apartments and lost revenue). Reading Ethan's post as an example of a landlord who is bike friendly, I think this might be best left to the market.
I am for all renter protection, but last thing we need is a nanny state telling me what we can do or not do at such a detailed level.

Oh, I own a condo, but not the building. Does that make me Rich or Poor? ;)

Tony Adams said:
Right. The landlord owns the building because s/he can afford to. The rest of us, presumably not as well off as the landlord have a simple choice: be able to afford to buy our own places or live at the whim of the landlords. How is this *not* about rich vs poor?

Currently the state can dictate who you can rent to, (you can't discriminate against renters because of their race, age, ethnic origin etc) how much heat you need to provide and a whole host of other requirements and prohibitions. Adding one more provision to clarify one's right to bring a bike into one's apartment is not new ground. Can you imagine being prohibited from having say, a television in one's apartment? There are a lot of good reasons why that might be a good idea, but it would be unthinkable really. The same reasoning should apply to a bike as to wheelchairs or baby strollers - all of these devices roll on wheels through the outside world and all of them are liable to get stolen if left locked up outside or in some flimsy garage.

notoriousDUG said:
Way to make it an rich vs. poor issue when it is exactly NOT that.
I think the point that was being made is that regardless of what we all think is right the landlord owns the building and has the right to place the rules and conditions he sees fit up on his tenants. Trying to take a way his right to do that is exactly the same as somebody trying to take away your right to bring a bike into the home you own... Notice I said own, not rent. I know it sucks and no one wants to hear it but it sounds like the lease clearly states that bikes are not allowed in the apartment which puts Andrew in the wrong. It's a stupid thing for the landlord to battle with him over but it is their right to set the rules.



Tony Adams said:
So rich people can do whatever they want and the rest of us can do whatever the rich people allow us to do? If those are my choices, then Iran may not be so bad.

cutifly said:
I think if you own a building you have a right to do whatever the law allows, when you cannot that means your personal freedom is being restricted and this is not Iran. Best thing for Andrew to do is move to a place where he and his bike are welcome. I know everyone is gonna be there to make it a fun experience and an improvement in the living situation.
Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on September 2, 2009 at 7:28am
Not everyone who owns a building is rich, contrary to popular belief you don't have to be rich to buy property, just have good credit. I could actually own if I really wanted to and choose to rent for other reasons, my disputes with my landlord have nothing to do with rich and poor.

Being able to bring a bike into your apartment, or even to have a TV is NOT a right.

Wheel chairs and strollers are an apples to oranges comparison, both of those items are usually able to collapse for ease of moving in and out of spaces plus the bicycle is a item people choose to have, I think there are very few people who choose to have a wheel chair...

Problems like this are not there for the nanny state to decide, they are there for the free market to decide. If the ability to bring a bike into an apartment is, society wide, really that big of a demand eventually those who will not allow it will be stuck without renters.

Tony Adams said:
Right. The landlord owns the building because s/he can afford to. The rest of us, presumably not as well off as the landlord have a simple choice: be able to afford to buy our own places or live at the whim of the landlords. How is this *not* about rich vs poor?

Currently the state can dictate who you can rent to, (you can't discriminate against renters because of their race, age, ethnic origin etc) how much heat you need to provide and a whole host of other requirements and prohibitions. Adding one more provision to clarify one's right to bring a bike into one's apartment is not new ground. Can you imagine being prohibited from having say, a television in one's apartment? There are a lot of good reasons why that might be a good idea, but it would be unthinkable really. The same reasoning should apply to a bike as to wheelchairs or baby strollers - all of these devices roll on wheels through the outside world and all of them are liable to get stolen if left locked up outside or in some flimsy garage.

notoriousDUG said:
Way to make it an rich vs. poor issue when it is exactly NOT that.
I think the point that was being made is that regardless of what we all think is right the landlord owns the building and has the right to place the rules and conditions he sees fit up on his tenants. Trying to take a way his right to do that is exactly the same as somebody trying to take away your right to bring a bike into the home you own... Notice I said own, not rent. I know it sucks and no one wants to hear it but it sounds like the lease clearly states that bikes are not allowed in the apartment which puts Andrew in the wrong. It's a stupid thing for the landlord to battle with him over but it is their right to set the rules.



Tony Adams said:
So rich people can do whatever they want and the rest of us can do whatever the rich people allow us to do? If those are my choices, then Iran may not be so bad.

cutifly said:
I think if you own a building you have a right to do whatever the law allows, when you cannot that means your personal freedom is being restricted and this is not Iran. Best thing for Andrew to do is move to a place where he and his bike are welcome. I know everyone is gonna be there to make it a fun experience and an improvement in the living situation.
Permalink Reply by Kohaku on September 2, 2009 at 7:41am
No bikes in those apartments. End of the story. Nothing to argue about unless the management is willing to make a change or an exception. Doesn't sound like it.
Would some of you fight a "no pets" policy? Good luck with that.
Permalink Reply by Andrew Bedno on September 2, 2009 at 7:54am
H3, you're right, it's a deal. Technically $595, but it is compact.
The shockers to my gentle heart was the raised voice and ultimatum. I do win-wins. Blocked by an absolute rule, I'll change the game (Kobayashi Maru). By next April I will improve things here, or leave. It's my duty to bike-dom.

I'm now in a compromise configuration: spare bike stowed offsite (no 24/7 access), and fixie locked (though I hate the rickety outside door) but not hung (bike closet has hooks but so close together the bikes scrape). Acceptable, but less that my minimum expectations. Already has been a maintenance nuisance.

There is a no pets rule, yet several pets are here reportedly grandfathered in from before that rule. I know this because I moved in to what I believed was a pet-free building due to allergies.

Marty, love the "give him $100" idea, that is so real world.

My case specifics aside though it's an important subject.
Who would imagine (hence I failed to notice years ago on signing lease) that there might be such a rule.

ATA, BtG, mayor, ... please add "spread bike friendly message and practical approaches to landlords" to your ToDo list.
Permalink Reply by Tony Adams on September 2, 2009 at 7:59am
I've been working on a draft of my "Accommodations for Animals" legislation for quite a while now. It is still a pretty rough draft, but essentially it taxes the crap out of landlords, condo associations and office buildings which prohibit animals. The bulk of the proceeds go to fund animal shelters, wildlife management and the like. I don't anticipate that this one will be easy to accomplish.

Kohaku said:
No bikes in those apartments. End of the story. Nothing to argue about unless the management is willing to make a change or an exception. Doesn't sound like it.
Would some of you fight a "no pets" policy? Good luck with that.
Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on September 2, 2009 at 8:33am
So you want to protect one persons freedom to have a pet by removing another persons freedom to choose what they do, or do not, allow on their private property?

Always remember the flip side of freedom is that other people get to behave in ways you don't like.

Tony Adams said:
I've been working on a draft of my "Accommodations for Animals" legislation for quite a while now. It is still a pretty rough draft, but essentially it taxes the crap out of landlords, condo associations and office buildings which prohibit animals. The bulk of the proceeds go to fund animal shelters, wildlife management and the like. I don't anticipate that this one will be easy to accomplish.

Kohaku said:
No bikes in those apartments. End of the story. Nothing to argue about unless the management is willing to make a change or an exception. Doesn't sound like it.
Would some of you fight a "no pets" policy? Good luck with that.
Permalink Reply by Tony Adams on September 2, 2009 at 10:24am
The status quo has one party (the renter) being denied the freedom to choose whether or not to have a pet. Another party (the landlord) has the freedom to choose whether or not to allow her tenants to have pets.

I'm proposing that we simply shift the two around. In terms of abstract freedoms, we break even. In terms of concrete freedoms many more are granted than denied as there are many more renters than landlords. But more importantly, a LOT more animals get homes who otherwise live (mostly) crappy short lives in shelters.

And technically, I'm not proposing that we deny anyone any freedoms. I'm suggesting that we impose a fee. A very very large fee.

notoriousDUG said:
So you want to protect one persons freedom to have a pet by removing another persons freedom to choose what they do, or do not, allow on their private property?
Always remember the flip side of freedom is that other people get to behave in ways you don't like.
Tony Adams said:
I've been working on a draft of my "Accommodations for Animals" legislation for quite a while now. It is still a pretty rough draft, but essentially it taxes the crap out of landlords, condo associations and office buildings which prohibit animals. The bulk of the proceeds go to fund animal shelters, wildlife management and the like. I don't anticipate that this one will be easy to accomplish.

Kohaku said:
No bikes in those apartments. End of the story. Nothing to argue about unless the management is willing to make a change or an exception. Doesn't sound like it.
Would some of you fight a "no pets" policy? Good luck with that.
Permalink Reply by Andrew Bedno on September 2, 2009 at 11:37am
I must interrupt/intercept, an object (bike) is a different order of question than an animal (pet). Furthermore, this site is for bike related threads, so can we stay close to that, though that tangent is interesting. I acknowledge that I'm arguing both "I must be able to bring my bike in" AND "I don't want others around me to have animals" but they're apples and oranges.

As mentioned before, I actually thought this was a pet-free building, and was dismayed at the grandfathering. Part of why I chose here was for low allergens. Freedoms and extra charges don't fix that they biologically contaminate my space, whereas bikes don't effect others at the same level. Personally I see strays as a problem of overpopulation not housing. (please don't flame please don't flame please don't flame)

Revisiting earlier, I'm an odd eco activist that believes in market forces. This topic may foreshadow a future of expecting to pay for bike parking as demand increases. How much would you pay? $500/mo unused unfinished groundfloor apartment 14'x12' / 25 bikes = $20/bike/mo? Anyone with experience creating high density bike storage areas, feedback appreciated.
Permalink Reply by Kohaku on September 2, 2009 at 4:32pm
just tell the landlord it's your grandfather's bike. lol

Andrew Bedno said:
...several pets are here reportedly grandfathered in from before that rule...

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service