Parent Pages
Sibling Pages
Child Pages
CJ Armstrong does not use a drug clause. Here from an email are her thoughts on the subject:
. . . I am not sure that a drug clause is needed. In my opinion what trips most landlord's up is not the clause but the consistency and clarity of enforcement. I am sure that you and Capt Beadles know more about this than I do [fat chance, CJ], but the general clause about obeying the laws of the municipality should be sufficient to evict if and only if you have documentation.
When I used to sit in local courts waiting for my non-payment cases, what I saw cases getting thrown out for was 1) failure to have a lease at all and 2) lack of documentation of claims.
As a practical matter, drug use and trafficking is not what usually evicts a tenant who is doing these things. In several instances, I evicted tenants for non-payment of rent, loud noise and physical damage to property. It was only after they moved out that I found evidence of their drug use. What I am saying is 1) other conditions usually accompany drug use and are made manifest more quickly, and 2) the landlord may have suspicions about drug use but rarely gets documented proof until much later.
This suggests that a drug clause won't do much good; a landlord who is managing his/her property attentively will remove the tenant for other violations long before the documenting of drug use becomes possible.
If I had my druthers, I would spend my time offering training sessions to landlords on documenting, documenting.....
Hope this helps.
CJ
Last updated 02/24/02
Please send questions or comments to John Butcher