There is no doubt in my mind that it was one of the wisest decisions I have ever made to leave the country of my origin and come to America as an adult immigrant. Before getting into the specific water-bill issue, the cultural differences between Japan and the U.S.A. are worth noting.
In Japan, members of its society – who learn moral codes of right and wrong through the educational system during their formative years – fully understand how they are expected to behave. If you incur a cost, you pay for it. No ifs, ands, or buts. If you deviate from such basic social expectations, the penalty levied in the form of shame you bring to your own family will be so great that most people dare not ignore them. In a country where people have a basic understanding of right from wrong, there are few frivolous issues about which people argue pubicly. This is part of the reason Japan has so few lawyers.
In contrast, in America, where it is made up of people from all over the world with varying degrees of educational background and moral compass (some have none), not everyone feels obligated to pay for something from which one derived benefit. Because of the multi-cultural backgrounds of its citizens, disputes often must be settled by involving a third party called attorneys. These disputes must then be brought up in front of judges. Every step of the way, the American system adds layers upon layers of “opinions” of those outsiders to the original issue, which started out between just two parties.
To make matters worse, many liberal judges in Michigan appear to blatantly ignore their duty to remain neutral. Instead, they display a clear bias toward tenants. Why?
In my humble opinion, these judges seem to be actively looking to secure the tenants’ votes, whose number is much higher than that of property owners. Their bias is a matter of simple mathematics. This is one of the major flaws of the American judicial system, at least with respect to issues concerning owner-tenant relationships.
Instead of upholding and enforcing the language of the contract between the property owner and the tenant, these judges like to be the “heroes” by choosing to protect the “poor, innocent tenants” from having to pay what is clearly their responsibility. Worse, no matter how unjust, judges bear none of the expenses of the verdict they issue. Rather, it is the property owner who ends up paying for them for an issue that should have been the tenant’s responsibility in the first place. Challenging the judge’s verdict can be cost-prohibitive, effectively silencing most owners, like us, who are not swimming in excess cash.
It has been my observation – through the lens of “I would do anything to remain free and independent” – that the American justice system is not about justice at all. Instead, it is all about interpreting and twisting the law for the sake of “social justice,” to protect those who choose to (1) slack off in life, (2) take advantage of those who seemingly have their act together, and (3) rely on the personal opinions of individual judges. It is not about the enforcement of written contractual agreements. This is wrong, pure and simple.
Michigan has the Municipal Water Liens Act 178 of 1939. (Yes, this is from the year 1939.) In many municipalities in Michigan, all of us – property owners – are subjected to having to deal with the collection of water-bill payments from tenants even when it is clearly the tenants that incurred these expenses during their stay in our properties.
Many of our investor friends manage their own properties. For them, this is especially a knotty issue. In our specific case, from the very beginning, we have always had a property-management company manage ours. Regardless of who manages, it is a fact of life that many tenants ignore the water bills – if we let them, that is. They know how the system works in their favor – in the eyes of many local judges – at the expense of property owners.
I consider the collection of all payments – rent and water – from tenants as our property manager’s responsibility. That said, several years ago, I began paying closer attention as to which tenant owed how much at each billing cycle. Yes, I went into a manage-the-manager mode because the water-bill payment issue can easily get out of hand.
You may be wondering, “When you are paying someone else to manage your properties, why would you get involved?” Good question. The simple answer is that if a lien is placed on our property and we find out about it belatedly, it is us that end up having to pay for it, with late fees, not the property-management company.
Today, the majority of our tenants are choosing to make partial payments on the water bills – because our property-management company chooses not to start an eviction process until and unless the amount owed goes above $500. Their rationale is, “Is it worth it to file for eviction when they owe you less than $500 in the water bills?” They have a point. And the tenants know it, too.
In contrast to the water-bill issue with which we are having to deal with the government, utility bills – gas and electric – are being managed by the respective private providers. All tenants have to do to receive service is to identify the start date in their name; when the lease is up and they choose to vacate the property, all they need to do is to notify the respective companies. There is no room for tenants to game the system. The duration of the service is black and white, specified by each tenant. Property owners stay out of these privately-run systems, and it works fine for every party involved. There is no reason the water-bill-payment system cannot be run as efficiently and effectively as gas and electricity.
We are hearing that the City of Detroit has a good system in dealing with water bills. I look forward to finding out more about it – so that, hopefully, it can be uniformly implemented throughout all municipalities in Michigan without wasting every property owner’s time and money.
All we want is for tenants to pay for water usage during their stay at our property. Nothing more, nothing less.
Happy investing!
