In addition to wide-ranging cultural and societal implications for all of us, “sleepers” slip little changes in almost imperceptibly. The topics they address too often seem amenable to little changes to clarify or “improve” targeted interactions. In the last “Sleeper” article, S184 was reviewed, which has since been joined by S244 of similar, but equally dangerous, intent. We will look now at new bills that impact rental housing.
Wait! Before you lose interest! Implications of laws like this are important. These laws are part of the all-encompassing, ongoing manipulation of people, codifying laws to ensure people accept and act according to carefully engineered changes in their attitudes, values, and behavior toward one another. Hundreds of laws are being codified using the cover of perceived need, emotional appeal, and the guise of government beneficence. They are changing people and our social compact.
Through law, government reaches deeply into common areas of formerly free market interaction, down to tiny details. This overreach will enable the police power of the State to control and manipulate every facet of our lives, in part by working on areas few people recognize as important. Most don’t even want to hear about them. Guess what? These “sleepers” are important. They facilitate change and promote state control.
Ask yourself, as you read further, do we really need the government to clarify and determine for everyone, by law, these little details of existence? Does no one have any common sense left? What will happen to us if we continue to let government delve so deeply into our lives, changing our ability to interact with one another in a healthy way without Big Brother dictating our every move? This is where we are headed.
In the past, a common characteristic of commercial interactions was, “You get what you pay for.” People accepted that, not imagining the government would intercede and determine what one should get. We now ignore the consequences or who might have to pay for government regulations. Too many laws target common human interactions, once worked out naturally with more balanced expectations on the part of the both parties. That is being changed.
“Thoughtful” bills listed below are presented in ways designed to entice any reader (which may even include some legislators) to believe they are imperative to strengthen the housing market, ensure safe and clear rental agreements, legally define and assign essential duties and responsibilities, and are benevolent and fair, among other factors. Each bill deals with a single detail, in accord, of course, with state law. This separates them conveniently. They are short. They can slip into law very easily. Each one, taken singly, may appear harmless, even helpful. Looked at as a group, maybe not so harmless.
A likely outcome of many of these simple bills will be increased tension or conflict in rental situations. In addition to raising questions of fairness (equity?), subtle changes resulting from many of these seemingly innocuous bills may reinforce the sense of two opposing classes—with common interests in, yet somewhat conflicting, goals for the use of the same property. Already negotiations between tenants and landlords today are (thanks to government laws and regulations) far more complex than in the past, increasing opportunities for more potentially adversarial situations. It is not difficult to take subtle advantage of some perceptions of rich and poor, in this case the rich landlord who is negligent, greedy, or uncaring, and the poor tenant who deserves protection, compassion, and special consideration. This may not bode well for those willing to offer a variety of housing options. Using government to make things harder and cause more animosity should be closely monitored and opposed instead of letting things move in that direction. Especially considering that creating conflict, fomenting distrust, and enacting too many laws are well-know communist strategies.
Another recurring theme is that tenants have become another special interest group. In many ways, burdens are being placed more heavily on landlords than on tenants. Landlords are being required to provide more and more services and assume greater costs for an expanding set of legally defined requirements. These may involve financial costs, unacknowledged risks for landlords, transfer of responsibility or consequences from tenant to landlord for events outside the landlord’s control, or in other ways favor the tenant over the landlord. Responsibility may even be placed on landlords for services that should be provided by other community agencies, resources or friends and families. We are allowing our government to create these problems for us, with potentially wide-ranging and negative impact in the long-run.
Is this speculation or exaggeration? Let’s take a quick look at several of these proposals. In some cases bills raise valid concerns, but they also provide laws controlling more details, pre-empting better solutions, increasing the police power of the state, and raising costs for taxpayers for all the state inspecting and surveilling. More government control will reduce the efficiency and fairness of human interactions, erase our freedom, and promote the underlying goal of ideology breaking our social stability into tiny pieces.
Brief comments on a few rental housing laws pre-filed or introduced during the first three weeks of the 2025-26 legislative session:
S69 Lodging Accommodations Ejectment
Lengthens the time period during a tenant must vacate a premises (for due cause) from 5 days to 10. This places more risk, financial burden, and inconvenience on the landlord. An example of the tenant as a special interest group.
S116 (introduced in the House as H3608), Multifamily Dwelling Safety Act
Empowers the State Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulations to develop and inspect for violations, “…for balcony railings that are primarily constructed of word and are located in multifamily dwellings.” A detail added to the already burdensome regulations and costs of enforcement, inspections, and overhead. Indicative of the depth of control government seeks.
H3569 Domestic violence in rental properties (new special interest group)
Defines a “protected interest group,” victims of domestic violence. Gives the victim the right to break a lease to the financial detriment of the landlord, even though the landlord likely played no part in the domestic issue.
H3229 Rental agreements
“Section 27-39-70. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a landlord in this State may not require a potential tenant to provide his credit score on a rental application or as a condition to a rental agreement.” Easy to imagine that a landlord might want to be assured of the financial reliability of a tenant. Is this government overreach into a contractual agreement? Should individuals and companies be unable to set their own criteria? Tenants declining to comply may find another rental. That’s freedom.
H3232 “Healthy Rental Housing Act”
A gift to lawyers and those who promote a litigious society. This bill deals with the problem of mold. Another example of government intrusion into a detail of life.
H3238 Renter Assistance (for “displaced residents”)
Another great sleeper. Such a small bill, but one with wide implications. “Section 31-3-60. A public housing authority or agency that is engaging in a project that displaces residents pursuant to Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) under the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development shall ensure that sufficient funds are available to relocate all displaced residents into housing that is equivalent to the housing in which they are forced to leave.” Compliance with federal law. Housing that is equivalent to the housing they left—at taxpayer expense?
H3233 Landlord liability
Requires landlords to provide protection from criminals. What about law enforcement? Expensive security requirements places another burden on landlords. This kind of environment should be the choice of the tenants—if they want more security, they should live where it is available. Could security cameras conflict with 3448? Too many laws!!
H3346 Rent Control Act
H3346 stands out as a perfect sleeper. It can just sleep indefinitely until a moment comes when it might be passed. In the meantime, the concept remains in the queue for the right opportunity to get this into the code of laws for future use. The introduction or expansion of “rent control” in any context presents so many dangers and financial threats to landlords this kind of legislation should be stopped without question. It has far-ranging implications for taxpayers, housing options and availability, economic stability, etc. “Rent control” is such a dangerous consideration, any thorough discussion of this bill is beyond the scope of this article. 3346 should not be allowed to move through the legislative process, and any future rent control attempts by the State must be stopped immediately.
H3387 Ejectment of Unlawful Occupants of a Residential Dwelling
H3418 Removal of Unauthorized Persons
Two bills addressing a new problem, squatters.
H3448 Prohibit certain photos by landlord of tenants
Considering the increasing number of public areas where cameras can be legally placed without the consent of the public, people should be very sensitive to the surveillance under which we are being placed. The reason for such surveillance is usually safety. Is there really a need for a law to require landlords to ask permission for taking pictures of those on their property? Another possible burden, limitation and risk for the owner of a property.
These are not all the bills currently listed on the statehouse website regarding residential rental housing. Comments are provided to suggest possible unintended consequences of even little laws regarding an essential part of our economy and community life.
Do we need all these laws? If we do, are these the best we can do? At what point will our legislators stop adding to the plethora of laws we already have?
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not constitute legal or professional advice. ConservaTruth assumes no liability for any actions taken based on this content. Read more.
Subscribe to ConservaTruth's Email Newsletter for curated insights on South Carolina's legislative activities and conservative viewpoints, delivered straight to your inbox! With vetted and easy-to-understand information, our newsletter empowers you to become an informed and engaged citizen, actively participating in safeguarding our cherished Constitutional values. Don’t miss out on crucial updates—join our community of informed conservatives today!
Comments