An interesting thing happened recently in Ames, Iowa. Shortly before a tenant vacated his apartment, he allegedly vandalized it, causing an estimated $3,100 in damages to the walls and thermostat. As reported this week by the Ames Tribune, the tenant now faces felony charges for his actions.
The unusual twist to this story is that the tenant was ordered to leave his apartment (with relocation assistance) after the city decided to purchase the building so that it could be torn down to widen an intersection.
Do you think the fact the tenant damaged part of a building that was intended to be demolished should affect how he is charged or sentenced? How much should the future plans of a building matter?
Comments
He is required by law to leave the apartment as it was when he first moved in, no matter what its disposition. If he vandalized it, he should be made to pay the cost of the actual damages. That simple. Besides, some of the things could have been removed (cabinets, thermostats, molding, reclaimed wood, wood flooring, ect…) and donated to a local charity or or organizations like Habitat for Humanity.
I agree with CJ in that it should most definitely matter. Off the record, sure, who wouldn’t want to just go to town on an apartment that is going to be destroyed anyways, but what happens if plans for destruction fall-through? Now what? You can’t have these kinds of events happening on a regular basis.