The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
How can we remove rowdy renters?
Biden administration raises royalty rates for first time in 100 years.
Q: Lately, some of the renters in our townhome community have been disruptive. There have been noise disturbances, domestic violence, unleashed pets and even open drug use. When some homeowners raised their concerns, the association said their ability to address the problem was limited, and changing rental bylaws was almost impossible. What can we do to make our neighborhood safe and peaceful again? — Brian
A: Dealing with unruly neighbors can be difficult, and even a single disruptive neighbor can ruin the other homeowners’ enjoyment of their neighborhood. Unfortunately, I have seen this issue occur many times in my law practice.
You seem to have taken the first step by alerting your homeowner association board to the problem. But rather than addressing the problem directly, the group seems to be trying to stop renting altogether, which is quite an undertaking.
In most associations, that would require most, if not all, owners to agree to ban renting outright. This is unlikely to occur since some owners already are renting their units.
Instead of trying to change the “system,” your community should focus on the individuals causing the problem.
Looking at it another way, the problem is caused by the unit owners renting to disruptive tenants. Since owners who are landlords are responsible to your association for their tenant’s actions, your association should directly warn the unit owners that their tenants are violating the community’s rules and that the owners will be held responsible if it does not stop.
If the problems continue, your community can fine those owners for their tenants’ misbehavior. If it continues, a lawsuit seeking an “injunction” or court order telling the tenants to stop their misdeeds can be filed. Depending on how your community’s rules are written, your association may even be able to evict the disruptive tenants.
Dealing with community members who do not follow the rules can be difficult, but until your community starts enforcing the rules, things are not going to improve.
Gary M. Singer is a Florida attorney and board-certified as an expert in real estate law by the Florida Bar. He practices real estate, business litigation and contract law from his office in Sunrise, Florida. He is the chairman of the Real Estate Section of the Broward County Bar Association. He frequently consults on general real estate matters and trends in Florida with various companies across the nation. Send him questions online at www.sunsentinel.com/askpro or follow him on Twitter @GarySingerLaw.
The Biden administration recently made it more expensive for fossil fuel companies to pull oil, gas and coal from public lands, raising royalty rates for the first time in 100 years in a bid to end bargain basement fees enjoyed by one of the country’s most profitable industries.
The government also increased more than tenfold the amount of the bonds that companies must secure before they start drilling.
The new rules are among a series of environmental regulations that are being pushed out as President Joe Biden seeks to cement policies designed to protect public lands, lower fossil fuel emissions and expand renewable energy.
While the oil and gas industry is strongly opposed to higher rates, the increase is not expected to significantly discourage drilling. The federal rate had been much lower than what many states and private landowners charge for drilling leases on state or private property.
“These are the most significant reforms to the federal oil and gas leasing program in decades, and they will cut wasteful speculation, increase returns for the public and protect taxpayers from being saddled with the costs of environmental cleanups,” Interior Secretary Deb Haaland said.
The government estimates that the new rules, which also would raise various other rates and fees for drilling on public lands, would increase costs for fossil fuel companies by about $1.5 billion between now and 2032. After that, the minimum royalty rate could increase again.
About half of that money would go to states, about one-third would be used to fund water projects in the West, and the rest would be split between the Treasury Department and Interior.
“This rule will finally curtail some of these wasteful handouts to the fossil fuel industry,” said Josh Axelrod, senior policy advocate with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Communities, conservationists and taxpayer advocates have been demanding many of these changes for decades.”
The rate increase was mandated by Congress under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, which directed the Interior Department to raise the royalty fee from 12.5%, set in 1920, to 16.67%. Congress also stipulated that the minimum bid at auctions for drilling leases should be raised from $2 per acre to $10 per acre.
But the sharp jump in bond payments — the first increase since 1960 — was decided by the Biden administration, not Congress. It came in response to arguments from environmental advocates, watchdog groups and the U.S. Government Accountability Office that the bonds do not cover the cost of cleaning up abandoned, uncapped wells, leaving taxpayers with that burden.
“Taxpayers have been losing billions of dollars on a broken leasing system with these ridiculously low royalty rates, rents and minimum bids for far too long,” said Autumn Hanna, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a fiscal watchdog group. “Adding insult to injury, taxpayers were left holding the bag for damages from wells oil and gas companies left behind, long after they had already profited from them. We own these resources, and it’s about time we are fairly compensated.”
The new rules increase the minimum bond for an individual drilling lease from $10,000 to $150,000. The amount of a bond for a drilling lease on multiple public lands in one state would rise from $25,000 to $500,000. The changes would replace an existing requirement that companies secure a single $150,000 bond as insurance against multiple damaged, abandoned wells anywhere in the country. Oil and gas companies said the changes, which could take effect in as few as 60 days, would hurt fossil fuel production and damage the economy.
“The true losers with this misguided policy are states and localities that rely on revenues from federal land extractive industries to meet their budget obligations year after year,” said Dan Naatz, chief operating officer for the Independent Petroleum Association of America. “Rather than taking their mandate to be good stewards of federal land for the betterment of the American people seriously, the Biden administration continues to ignore the people in local towns and communities across the West in order to placate a small group of environmentalists and to further reduce American oil and natural gas production.”
Last year, the United States produced more oil than any country, ever. And the oil and gas industry still will continue to receive nearly a dozen federal tax breaks, including incentives for domestic production and write-offs tied to foreign production. Total estimates vary widely, but the Fossil Fuel Subsidy Tracker, run by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, calculated the total to be about $14 billion in 2022.
But more expensive bonds could put drilling out of reach for smaller oil and gas producers, said Kathleen Sgamma, president of Western Energy Alliance, an association of independent oil and gas companies.
“They are ludicrously high, ludicrously out of whack with the problem,” she said. “They could actually put companies out of business and create new orphan wells.”
The Interior Department estimates that there are 3.5 million abandoned oil and gas wells in the United States. When oil and gas wells are discarded without being properly sealed, which can happen when companies go bankrupt, the wells can leak methane, which is a major contributor to global warming.
As a candidate, Biden promised “no more drilling on federal lands, period.” But his administration approved more permits for oil and gas drilling in its first two years (more than 6,900 permits) than the Trump administration did in the same period (6,172 permits).
Supermarket beverage aisles are starting to look a lot more like a pharmacy.
There are sodas made with mushrooms that supposedly improve mental clarity and juices packed with bacteria that claim to enhance digestive health. Water infused with collagen carries the promise of better skin, and energy drinks offer to help burn body fat.
Welcome to the frenzy of functional beverages — drinks designed to do more than just taste good or hydrate. What started in the late 1980s with caffeine- and vitamin-laced energy drinks like Red Bull has grown into a multibillion-dollar industry. Hundreds of brands are vying for consumers’ attention with increasingly exotic ingredients and wellness-focused marketing.
Feeling stressed? Try a drink with ashwagandha, a shrub long used in herbal medicine. Want to enhance your workout? There are drinks containing chromium, a mineral that may boost metabolism. Want to get in a party mood without alcohol? Multiple companies are making non-alcoholic spirits and beers infused with ingredients like guayusa, a leaf containing caffeine and antioxidants.
Consumer intelligence company NielsenIQ counted 53,000 UPC symbols in the U.S. functional beverage category last year, including all of the different flavors of energy drinks, sports drinks, sodas, waters, shakes and teas that are sold on the premise of enhancing mental or physical health.
Nutritionists say the general trend of consumers seeking out healthier beverages is a good one. But experts also say people should be cautious and read ingredient labels, especially if they are pregnant, taking medication or have other health issues. And they should avoid empty calories and sugars that they’re not going to burn off. A 16-ounce Monster energy drink has nearly as much sugar as a regular Coke, for example.
“Someone who’s running a marathon has different needs than someone who’s commuting to work,” said Martha Field, an assistant professor in the division of nutritional sciences at Cornell University.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulates ingredients and requires drink labels to be truthful, and the Federal Trade Commission can step in if companies make false claims. In 2013, the FTC determined that Pom Wonderful pomegranate juice was deceptively advertised as clinically proven to treat, prevent or reduce the risk of heart disease and prostate cancer.
But functional beverage makers generally make less specific claims, and the science behind them is sometimes inconclusive. SkinTe, a sparkling tea, says it “supports skin hydration and elasticity” with 3,000 milligrams of collagen in a 12-ounce can. But last year, Harvard Medical School researchers said there’s not yet solid evidence that collagen drinks or supplements enhance skin, hair or nail growth.
Negative reactions also can happen. Panera Bread faces at least two lawsuits claiming its highly caffeinated Charged Lemonade led to the deaths of people with heart conditions.
“It’s important to remember that everything has the potential to be both toxic and safe, depending on the amounts. The dose makes the poison,” said Joe Zagorski, a toxicologist for the Center of Research on Ingredient Safety at Michigan State University. “Since it’s difficult to determine the amount of specific compounds in many of these beverages, it’s better to proceed cautiously than to over-consume.”
In some ways, there’s nothing new about humans seeking added benefits from their drinks. Ancient Egyptians and Romans sipped chamomile tea for its perceived healing effects. In 1935, a Japanese microbiologist introduced Yakult, a fermented milk drink now sold around the world as a way to improve gut health.
In the last half-century, beverages ranging from Ovaltine to wheatgrass juice had their moments as praised nutritional supplements. What’s different now is social media, which allows the speedy spread of information about less familiar ingredients, Cornell’s Field said.
Two of the latest to generate a buzz are adaptogens, which are plants and mushrooms that have been shown to help the body respond to stress and fatigue, and nootropics, which are natural or synthetic cognitive enhancers like caffeine, gingko and amino acids.
Trends ebb and flow within the category. U.S. sales of prebiotic and probiotic drinks more than tripled last year, while sales in the more mature kombucha category rose just 8%, according to data compiled by consulting firm AlixPartners.
“Consumer savviness on functionality of ingredients has really increased,” said Sherry Frey, vice president of wellness at NielsenIQ.
For some, the health claims in functional drinks are secondary. Amy Cassels, a health and fitness coach from Magnolia, Texas, said functional drinks appeal to her because they typically contain natural ingredients, like fruit juice as a sweetener. She enjoys Poppi, a prebiotic soda, as a once-aday treat.
“When I drink something like that, I do not believe that I am nurturing my health by drinking that. But I’m not harming my health, either,” Cassels said. “It’s a guilt-free indulgence.”
A sizable share of the beverages-with-benefits market is geared toward people who want to curb or cut their alcohol intake. London-based Three Spirit makes non-alcoholic drinks with more than 60 ingredients, including guayusa and schisandra, an Asian berry, that it says mimic the sense of relaxation and social lubrication that drinkers get from beer, wine and spirits.
“Fundamentally, alcohol is the ultimate functional drink,” Three Spirit co-founder Dash Lilley said. “People don’t just drink for flavor. It helps people socialize, helps people unwind, helps people perk up. So we thought we could do that really well by coming at it from a new angle.”
Randy Burt, a managing director at AlixPartners who studies food and beverage, said functional drinks align with a decades-long shift consumers have been making toward healthier diets and habits. He doesn’t see demand for the drinks slowing down. Euromonitor, a market research company, expects global sales of functional beverages to grow 7% each year through 2027.
In the U.S., sales of functional beverages jumped 54% to $9.2 billion between March 2020 and March 2024, according to NielsenIQ. That was faster than the 43% growth for the non-alcoholic beverage market overall. Functional beverages now make up about 10% of the total U.S. non-alcoholic beverage market.
Frey said sales slowed a little in the U.S. last year, which she partly attributed to the relatively high cost of functional beverages. Twelve 12-ounce cans of Olipop, a prebiotic soda, sell for $35.99 on Amazon.com; a 12-pack of Dr. Pepper costs $6.48.
“Consumers are making trades, saying, ‘Maybe I’ll still purchase this, but I won’t purchase it as frequently,’” she said.
Henry Chen, founder and CEO of California-based ALO Drink, a line of beverages made with aloe vera plants, said the increasing number of brands and promised health benefits is overwhelming for consumers. Chen suspects shoppers eventually will tire of purpose-driven drinks in favor of simpler libations.
“There are just too many narrowly specific functional needs that brands are claiming to address, too many esoteric ingredients that you need a science degree to understand being added to foods and beverages,” he said.
Even better might be bypassing the functional beverage aisle altogether, said Corrie Whisner, an associate professor at Arizona State University’s College of Health Solutions.
“At the end of the day, if someone would ask me, ‘Should I be drinking these for my health?’ I would probably say no and stick to whole foods as much as possible,” Whisner said. “Just eat real food. Then you know what you’re getting.”