Topic: Which is worse:No crime prevention program or not managing the one you have

Here is a phrase that I hear frequently in litigation involving crime prevention: We do not provide security for our tenants. Or...We cannot guarantee the safety of our tenants. I think both statements are correct given the proper context.

Do you have a crime prevention plan? Certainly. Lights, fences, gates, locks, landscaping, good visibility etc. Is that providing "security" (not protection) for your tenants? Yes, as long as you can articulate it. Are those aspects "guaranteeing the safety" of tenants? No. There are no guarantees or offers to do so and crime prevention is comprised of the sum of the parts, not just a part (such as lighting). Security (protection) cannot be assured even for the president.

The terror in the minds of many property management companies is that even admitting those areas are "security" related is a very bad thing. Which is the better position: knowing how to describe what you do related to crime prevention (not security) or flatly saying that security is not provided?

Does any of this mean you should have off duty police or guards or courtesy officers on the property? There is no absolute, only reasonableness. Think of it this way: if you were considering a particular property for a home, would it be reasonable to expect the property manager to address crime and crime prevention in a reasonable manner? Defining reasonable measures depends on what, if anything, was enacted by management based on the location and their own crime experience. Would it be reasonable for a property to hire off duty police if there is a rash of car break-ins? Would it be reasonable to hire a patrolling security guard if the property had experienced multiple armed robberies of tenants in the parking lots? Keep in mind that perhaps improving lighting is the first approach but until that is completed you hire a guard. Is it ever reasonable to do nothing when a property manager is aware of violent crime? That would not be a reasonable approach.

Regardless of what efforts are put forth, a plaintiff's attorney will want to enrage the jury against the property management company. If there has been a pattern of crime and the testimony was we don't provide security, how will that play in court?

Stay away from the patent statement about security. Know and understand all of the variables to security that are present. Also understand that the courts look to a reasonableness question and not to specific crime prevention measures as the answer. Just ask yourself what you would expect as a tenant if certain conditions exist.
(The above is not intended as legal advice. This information is provided strictly as information. Any legal advise should be obtained by appropriate legal counsel.)

"Just ask yourself what you would expect as a tenant if certain conditions exist."

That's part of the problem, in my opinion, because what some residents would expect may NOT be reasonable. An armed hold up occurs two blocks from a property, what is reasonable for a resident to expect the property to do? Just asking - not trying to be argumentative. It's just that people tend to think in varied ways and managing expectations is tricky.

Mindy...Great question! You will never be able to calm the nerves of tenants when it comes to crime. Their concerns may be well founded...for them. For someone else it may not even register. The "reasonableness" factor is not about appeasing your tenants as much as it is about your legal duty.

The bottom line is that you are actively pursuing a crime prevention "program". Lighting, maintenance, visibility, trash, and the other simple and low cost measures that help prevent crime. Don't jump over the practical solutions and go to security guards as a first step. If a murder occurs, then a guard patrol MAY be the immediate solution. That is a decision that is made with your legal partners. Your tenants may be unreasonable wanting a guard by their apartment but again, that is something you just have to work through.

Property owners do not have endless financial resources to provide "protection" to residents. No property owner offers protection for their tenants and visitors. Your residents should be able to vent (as I am sure they do on everything) but ultimately the decisions are yours as to what is reasonable. There are too many variables involved so your best resource is the crime prevention unit of the police department. If they have a Crime Free Multi Housing section contact them directly.

This link taa.org/member/edufoundation/crimeawareness will take you to a page where you can download the Texas Apartment Associate Crime Awareness Guide. The download link is under the last paragraph. This is an excellent tool for guidance on many things and it may give you some ideas for your own crime prevention planning.

Patrick, what has been the outcome of these cases when the attorney is attempting to enrage a jury against the landlord? I'm not talking about places with no lighting, locks falling off doors or windows that don't lock.
Also, what would you suggest as to how a landlord represent this to prospects and residents. I'm confused about what you're saying, your first paragraph states it's OK to say and then at the end you say to stay away from these phrases.

I agree that tenant expectations do not always align with what management should and will reasonably provide and management is not obligated to meet or fulfill every request and concern just because a tenant thinks it should be that way. Think of it as citizens applying law based on how they would like it to be rather than the actual law. Well your honor, technically I wasn't drunk because my personal limit is eight beers and I only had five, or I only hit her once, she's hardly bruised and she was askin' for it.

A plaintiff's attorney's effort at making a jury "angry" about a defendant is sometimes very easy especially in apartment cases. They hire a guy like me who researches crime for the prior 2 or 3 years on the property. Then they look at violent crime in the area (I generally use a mile) for the same time frame. In broad terms, the attorney needs to establish the property "knew or should have known" that the crime that occurred was foreseeable. Where the wheels come off for most properties is that they were quite aware of violent crimes (murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault) were happening and did nothing. The juror then is asking why didn't the property do "something" instead of nothing. That "something" comes back around to that reasonable question.

The property management company also has a security expert to explain all of the measures that had been on going prior to the crime. The tough position is when there is not much to tell about those things. My eternal hope is for a property manager to come in and toss their planning on the table and say: Take your best shot! I'd just like to see a property manager be able to assertively describe the things I mentioned before.

I would never recommend a prospect hear "We provide security" and just leave it at that. Too much left to ones imagination. You can, at your discretion, describe the crime prevention efforts that are undertaken and be very open about your interest in their feedback. Have resident crime prevention meetings and have the police department come out and talk about safety. (These meetings are very difficult to get traction but it is worth the effort). My point is that there are component pieces related to safety and crime prevention that managers may not recognize as such. The question becomes at what point are those measures not working for you. There is no line to tell you that. There is no guarantee that any one or any collection of measures will prevent all crime. If I knew that answer I'd be on the speaking circuit and we'd all be crime free.

It is okay to talk about what you do in terms of crime prevention but each of us own the responsibility for our own safety. However, you can't rely on that to deflect a legal duty when one exists. ....it was just a small robbery and they were only slightly wounded. You should have seen the one from last week!
(My responses are not intended as legal advice. This content is meant for educational and informational purposes only.)

Interesting. Fortunately we haven't come across that "yet". A perspective I have is what would this same person have done if they were in a house, instead of a multi-family dwelling. Would they have have these same flood lights, cameras, gates etc. And how do you expect to hold someone responsible for what happens one or two miles away, especially when surrounded by two major metropolitan areas - why are they not contacting those in that direct area to see what is being done about it rather than pick a convenient target. Also, when suspicious activity is reported a week or month later I always ask if they contacted the police when they saw it happening. I would hope that the attorney for the landlord is at least touching on these points. Thanks for the info Patrick, yes everyone assumes property owners have deep pockets.

There is really no difference between a home owner and an apartment owner. Both control their own property. Owners of multifamily properties delegate responsibility to a management company which creates a buffer but even that is not always true as contracts are involved.

Area crime is always an argued point. Courts have consistently ruled that businesses do not have to proactively seek out crime statistics but in most jurisdictions the property manager bears the burden of understanding what type of criminal threats can visit your tenants on your property. It makes sense otherwise all crime committed on the property is from your residents. I know, it is contradictory but it is reasonable for a business to know the neighborhood. If you were conducting a competitive analysis of other properties, you know how wide your property's influence is. A SWOT analysis could include crime as a strength or weakness. It's just another part of operations.