Despite how hot it is, landlords in Tennessee are not required to keep the air conditioning running.
In our changing climate, that probably comes as a surprise.
However, unless it’s in the lease, nothing in Tennessee’s Landlord-Tenant Act gives renters the right to air conditioning.
“I think it’s unfair. It’s inhumane to me because without air we can’t live and breathe,” said Anita Brown.
I actually agree that nobody has a “right to air conditioning”.
But people do have a right to whatever’s been promised in a contract they signed.
This lady rented an apartment with an air conditioner. She’s paying for this apartment. The landlord isn’t allowed to just ignore requests for maintenance because they don’t feel like providing the air conditioner any more.
The air conditioner is part of the deal they agreed to, and the landlord isn’t holding up their end of the deal.
Counter point: do I have a right to engage in activities that cause the overall habitability of the planet to drop for vast swathes of the population?
Edit: I seem to be getting taken out of context here. I’m referring to corporations/landlords in this context, not the humans wanting to be cool.
Poor wording, rip inbox.
This is soon to pass as a bylaw in my city. I hope all the landlords have chapped asses over it. ALAB.
Most of the world can’t afford air conditioning. We’re talking something like five billion people or way more.
I mean first of all, not every part of the world needs it. Second… everyone who needs it and can’t afford it should also have access.
Giving it to group A does not, in cases like this, preclude group B from it as well.
I’m not here to say people don’t deserve air conditioning. I’m just pointing out the lack of equity in life. Most of those poor billions are in places where the heat index is higher than most places in the US.
I had jury duty once and the air conditioning was acting up. Judge announced we would all be moving to a different room as a result, which we did.
Guess it isn’t a luxury when it’s a judge’s place of work.
people used to build houses that were designed in such a way where you didn’t need air conditioning. In tropical country such as Vietnam where I live this is still the case. I have to wonder if the United States builds houses inefficiently on purpose.
I have to wonder if the United States builds houses inefficiently on purpose.
Starting roughly during the housing boom just after WWII, the United States started building houses cheaply on purpose. One of the most noticeable changes is common house designs went from being Craftsman bungalows with high (e.g. 10’) ceilings, lots of windows for good ventilation, and large roof overhangs for shade and protection from wind-driven rain, to “American Small Houses” with 8’ ceilings, minimal windows and no roof overhangs.
As the owner of one of the latter (in the South, BTW), I can tell you that trying to keep it cool via cross-ventilation is largely ineffective.
I think we got lazy with our designs once centralized air was mainstreamed. The house my father grew up in the 1950s was designed like you mentioned. It would only allow light through during certain times of year/day with its overhanges and louvers and it jad more windows which allow more air flow…now according to him it was still a miserable place to live during the 1950s Texas summers…
Modern houses with their insulated walls and double windows are better at withstanding summer than the ones I’ve lived in while my only solace for 85+ degree nights was a fan.
I’m all for demanding proper maintenance from landlords, even if it’s not on the lease. You visit a unit that has a thermostat on it, that’s advertising it has a working AC. It’s disingenuous from the landlord to claim the AC is decorative.
But claiming air conditioning is essential is utter horseshit.
Most of our houses have to stand up to the cold too (at least presently). Idk how much this affects what kind of designs are possible, but some brain roughage for ya.
Surprising keeping the cold out vs in doesn’t change much. You insulate the shit out of the building to minimize unwanted transfer from outside to inside.
The comments two and three levels up were about third-world tropical houses and old houses respectively, both designed to be habitable in hot climates without air conditioning. As such, they are/were designed exactly the opposite way: to maximize cross-ventilation instead.
What you really want these days would be a house that’s tightly insulated but also has lots of operable windows, a whole-house fan, and/or a design that facilitates stack effect ventilation so that it can use either cooling strategy when conditions are appropriate.
We could just start building houses so they don’t need them like they do in Hawaii. The well designed houses are designed in a way that allows maximum airflow when the windows are open because the price of running an ac there is astronomical.
If you’ve ever been to the deep south usa like Tennessee you would know that’s not viable. Temps hit 100 F easily most summers. Humidity is often very high in combination with the scorching heat.
Fortunately it is definitely NOT the norm for homes to be built and/or rented that do not have AC. I’ve rented numerous cheap homes and apartments in the South, every one had AC. My cheapest rental home was $300/mo and it had all utilities (and central HVAC) working except Internet.
Ah yes, Hawaii, where it gets to a scalding 85F on the hottest of days
i think it is disingenuous to represent that AC is a standard or required by law for a rental anywhere, at least in the US. I do find it shitty that the AC included with the unit is damaged, and land(slum)lord won’t fix it, but again, unless it’s in the lease there really is no requirement that the LL provide it in US. I think it is good to start a discussion on if AC for a rental should be the law, (edit: i also would strongly support this) but i doubt we will see that become the case, especially in southern states which probably would need it most.
If the building becomes unlivable it’s an issue. high temps with high humidity can literally lead to heat stroke since no amount of fans will help since you literally can’t cool off even with sweating.
What that fix is, I’m not sure, but some buildings in areas of the south become ovens during heat waves and without AC people will get sick or die.
i absolutely agree, my point is less that there are or are not health concerns, just that it is currently not a requirement, at least anywhere I have lived. i believe it should be, but I know that the south passing legislation that helps vulnerable people at the expense of those who own property is probably never going to happen. i just felt like it was odd that the article was stating that there is no law in the state, without emphasizing that most states do not either.
i think it is disingenuous to represent that AC is a standard or required by law for a rental anywhere, at least in the US.
Having AC is a standard and required by law in many places in the US
https://www.rent.com/blog/keeping-cool-tenant-landlord-responsibilities-air-conditioning/
that didn’t have any list of states, but my curiosity lead me here https://propertyclub.nyc/article/apartment-air-conditioning-laws#what-states-require-air-conditioning
i was pleasantly surprised to find 24 states that do require it, with some other states that have some loopholes.
It’s just fucked up that an appliance that’s connected to the actual rental unit doesn’t need to be operational by law. I mean, if the 'fridge dies in a TN rental unit is the landlord required to fix it or does that need to be specified in the lease also?
It’s just basic consumer protection, IMO. The AC comes with the apartment, the landlord should be required to maintain it.
We also don’t technically require that you have a steady supply of oxygen in your apartment, but I’m guessing you’d find it unreasonable if you woke up in a vacuum.
Do we even have a law that says landlords can’t heat your apartment to 100 degrees Fahrenheit? Or a law that specifically proscribes noise machines? Do we really have to specify every fucking thing or can people just be reasonable?
I’d argue that if it’s a feature of the unit that was present when someone signed, then yes it should be required to work.
Of course contracts can’t cover every little thing, so it’s ridiculous to rely on them for that level of granularity. Do we need to mandate contracts have an Entry for every feature of every appliance, every piece of infrastructure, every piece of structure? No. These things were presented as being there and functioning. But we should be able to rely on things working as presented. We should have a legal right that that be true
As an American you don’t have a right to universal healthcare and you’re worried about air conditioning?
Multiple things can be bad at the same time
This is also a lot more achievable than total healthcare reform. Both are achievable for sure, but just forcing landlords to install and maintain aircon is easier
Sure except air conditioning is not a right. It’s a luxury.
