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.

  • jake_jake_jake_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    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.

    • yeahiknow3@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      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?

    • rc__buggy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

    • SzethFriendOfNimi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • jake_jake_jake_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      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

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        But the post in question says there is AC. It’s just broken and the landlord doesn’t want to fix it. That’s not ok

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Because it was represented as a feature when someone decided to rent the place. Otherwise it’s a “bait and switch” and should be fraudulent

            For example, nothing requires an outlet or switch to work, as long as it’s safe, but we expect that to work. I doubt anything requires all burners on a stove to work, but it’s certainly expected. Nothing requires windows to open but it’s expected.

            • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Because it was represented as a feature when someone decided to rent the place.

              Pardon? It wasn’t on the lease, so it wasn’t.

              For example, nothing requires an outlet or switch to work, as long as it’s safe, but we expect that to work. I doubt anything requires all burners on a stove to work, but it’s certainly expected. Nothing requires windows to open but it’s expected.

              Actually, codes and legislations do! Your entire comment is misguided yeesh. AC IS different since no codes, legislations, or the lease requires it. A stove is require by code, legislations, and lease, so if it doesn’t work, that’s an issue.

              So you understand the very important distinction now….? Probably not, but do you?