![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Active Entries
- 1: Head Cold
- 2: 2024: A Year in POTA
- 3: Visual Thinking by Temple Grandin
- 4: Please call Congress about permitting reform today
- 5: Election timing and the wheel of the year
- 6: Joy of Missing Out
- 7: Did you know the toothbrush was invented in West Virginia?
- 8: If I told you you had a celestial body, would you move it in front of the sun?
- 9: Florid Spam
- 10: Donating your body to SCIENCE!
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
no subject
Date: 2013-10-31 05:04 pm (UTC)I mean, the primary purpose of renting a place is to live in it, not to keep your stuff. If you can't use it for its primary purpose, you shouldn't be paying the primary portion of the rent.
I definitely feel that more than 50% is not reasonable.
But that's just my personal feeling. Legally, I think it's covered by Colorado's implied warrant of habitability, which the landlord is in breach of for various things like lack of running water or electricity, but which also includes "otherwise unfit for human habitation". Here's a relevant page: http://colofloodlegalrelief.org/resources/landlord-tenant/colorado-warranty-of-habitability/