Carlos Hernandez was planning his mother’s funeral when he got a call so heartless it defies belief. Less than 24 hours after Leticia Farrer (75) passed in her sleep, her landlord at Avenida at Centerra demanded $5,000 in early termination fees — because even death wasn’t enough to break a lease. Imagine mourning a loved one and being shaken down by a corporate landlord before you’ve even had a chance to grieve.

After media pressure, Avenida’s parent company, Greystar, ultimately waived the fees — but Hernandez saw it as a move to “save face,” not an act of decency. His story sparked outrage, leading Rep. Ron Weinberg (R-Loveland) to introduce House Bill 25-1108, which would prohibit landlords from imposing penalties when a lease is terminated due to a tenant’s death. The bill passed its first committee vote with bipartisan support.

This is just one example of how large, out-of-state corporate landlords exploit tenants, extracting money in ways that often go unnoticed until it’s too late. HB25-1108 is part of a broader push for renter protections, alongside bills targeting “junk fees” and rent-setting algorithms — both tactics landlords use to extract more money with little transparency.

While some argue that supply and demand should regulate rental prices, nothing ensures a balanced market is an ethical one. The housing market already tilts heavily in favor of landlords — especially corporate ones — because demand far outpaces supply. Renters don’t have the power to negotiate lease terms when competition is fierce. That’s why legal protections like HB25-1108 are necessary.

Still, I can’t help but be cynical — these landlords will find a way to protect their profits. If they can’t charge grieving families an early termination fee, they’ll just spread the cost across all tenants, rolling it into rent as an “insurance” charge. It’s an unfortunate reality, one the government can’t regulate, largely because of the unbalanced housing market. But at least this way, the burden is shared rather than being outright predatory toward those experiencing profound loss. That may not be perfect, but it’s far more just than the inhumane alternative.

At its core, this bill is about basic human decency. No one should have to fight a legal battle while mourning a loved one. That Greystar only backed down after public outcry proves the need for legal protections. It shouldn’t take media pressure to stop a company from preying on the vulnerable — but until that changes, we need laws like this to hold them accountable.

Hernán Villanueva, chvillanuevap@gmail.com

In 1976, as I was finishing up my studies at CU. I rented a basement apartment on The Hill from the Omnibus Group. Housing close to campus was one less strain at a stressful time. That stress increased during that winter when the pipes froze and ruptured, flooding my apartment and meager belongings. The next spring, when my lease was up, I was informed that my rental deposit would not be refunded because I had ruined the carpet. In vain, I tried to explain that the carpet remnants were soiled when the pipes burst and insisted that such maintenance was their responsibility. They did not return my deposit. I had just learned the difference between negotiating with a property owner and a corporate property manager. I was hoping for some understanding in a contractual agreement. I’m sure I did not read the fine print.

Lease agreements are binding contracts and when someone dies, assets and debts are held by the estate, and it is the duty of the executor to pay debts and disburse assets from the estate. When a renter dies and then becomes responsible for a broken lease, that seems to be predatory practice. Or is it just smart business? Smart business is not always good business.

House Bill 1108 prohibits rental agreement penalties and charges accrued by termination of a rental agreement due to death. Rent setting algorithms and “junk” fees already place tenants at a disadvantage. Any legislation that helps to place renters on parity with landlords is good business.

When Carlos Hernandez was presented with a $5,000 dollar penalty due to a broken lease when his mother died, he took his outrage to social media. That kind of pressure sometimes gets results. But why does one have to apply pressure for a company to do the right thing? Because no matter how vigorously the Supreme Court may affirm that corporations are people, they are not. To publicly shame a corporation is to attack their bottom line, and at that moment, an enterprise may choose to take up compassionate action and reduce or vacate fines.

Ambrose Bierce in the Devil’s Dictionary defines business as “an ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.” Corporate property managers wield great power, and as Spiderman reminds us, “With great power comes great responsibility.”

Jim Vacca, jamespvacca1@gmail.com

I’m going to sound heartless here, but I’m actually a very emotional person. I cry at the silliest touching moments. However, such a state of mind is not conducive to good public policy development. We need to be fair and rational.

In the motivating anecdote, the bereaved wants relief from a signed lease. This isn’t fair to the company renting the apartment to the deceased. The stipulation was in the lease and should be honored. This is akin to Biden’s nonsensical, morally hazardous, vote-buying “tuition forgiveness” boondoggle. People need to honor their commitments and legal documents. The U.S. is such a great environment for people to live and work because of the rule of law. There should be no debate about paying the $5,000 for breaking the lease.

However, instituting a law that prevents such clauses is an entirely different matter, and, like most things in life, there are pluses and minuses. We first must understand why there is such a fee for breaking a lease. Having been a landlord in my past, I know it is difficult and expensive to find a good tenant. I typically paid a full month’s rent to find such a candidate. If the lease was broken after two months, I’d have lost a considerable amount of money. Most people, myself included, don’t like losing money.

If you run a business that loses money, you go out of business.

If we ban early termination fees, what do you think will happen to rents? They will go up. They must go up to cover the increase in risk. People sometimes don’t realize this very basic fact. We have so many dumb laws and regulations for exactly this reason: good intentions but very little perception of how market economies work.

It would be great if the entire voting public was well informed on such issues as rent, affordable housing, energy, climate change, drugs, addiction, homelessness, etc. but it’s impossible for all of us to be knowledgeable about every issue in society, which is why we have a representative government and not a pure democracy. Unfortunately, our representatives frequently don’t educate themselves before proposing populist solutions that sound good. Why? Because that helps them get reelected. Even though it might make things worse, they look good, and that’s all that matters.

The host of bills addressing “junk fees” needs to be analyzed individually with an honest assessment of the costs and benefits before enacting them.

Bill Wright, bill@wwwright.com