Green Lantern # 76

With Green Lantern # 76, first released in April 1970, DC started a radically different project than anything they’d done with the title before. For the next fourteen or so issues, Green Lantern would team up with Green Arrow to travel the country—mostly the Pacific Northwest, it seems—to find “the real America” and deal with pressing, real-world social issues along the way. It’s timely that we look at this now, for not only is Arrow now running on The CW, but DC has re-released this iconic run in a trade paperback. One imagines that this might have been timed to coincide with the show.

The run is not renowned for its subtlety—comic books were largely targeted at teenage boys (as they mostly still are) and hadn’t gained the sheen of respectability they now enjoy—but it does have this classic page, where a superhero is actually asked why they seem to be so useless.

Anyway, as one might imagine, this run is chock full of stuff for us to write about. In the first issue, #76, we have the case of a slumlord who gets in a street altercation and is allegedly planning to raze a tenement he owns.

I. The Setup

The story opens with Green Lantern flying around Star City when he sees a crowd of ruffians assaulting what appears to be an innocent bystander. He intervenes. His intervention is mostly okay, too, because he uses non-lethal methods to prevent what has the potential to be quite serious injury. So far, so good.

But then the crowd turns on GL, hitting him with a can, and begins showering him with whatever comes to hand. Turns out the “bystander” is actually the local slumlord, and they don’t like him much. So when GL saves his bacon, the locals aren’t thrilled. But when GL is about to take it out on one of the assailants, Green Arrow steps in. At this point, the landlord, the assailants, and the locals basically disappear to let our heroes get on about the business of discussing things.

Green Arrow points out that the locals are right to dislike their landlord. He’s apparently not spent a dime on maintenance in years, and the place is basically falling apart at the seams. But to make matters worse, he’s decided to level the place and replace it with a parking lot and is about to start evicting the tenants. The tenants may not like where they live, but for many of them, it’s all they’ve got. Green Arrow is upset about this, as fits his character. In this series, Hal Jordan serves as the privileged, white do-gooder, while Green Arrow is more the (privileged, white) liberal iconoclast, some cross between socialist and anarchist.

But the way the conversation goes, Green Lantern is upset at the hooligans, because they were breaking the law even if they were justifiably upset, while Green Arrow is upset at the landlord, because he’s oppressing the poor even if he’s technically within his legal rights.

II. Landlord-Tenant Relations

Except that he probably isn’t. Two things. First, just as a general principle of contract law and landlord-tenant relations, tenants who pay their rent and don’t violate the conditions of their lease can’t generally be evicted just because the landlord would prefer them to be. Not in the middle of their lease anyway. The landlord has agreed to provide the premises for the lease period, and that includes an agreement not to suddenly start using the premises for something else, like a parking lot. He may be able to simply say “I’m not going to rent to you anymore” at the end of the lease, and if he’s saying that to all of his tenants as a way of phasing the premises out of residential use, he might well be able to do that. But that’s not really eviction. It would turn into an eviction if the tenants refused to vacate the premises, but terminating a lease at the end of its period is not an eviction.

And the story really does suggest that its an eviction. The way Green Arrow tells the story, the landlord is about to turn out all of his tenants at once. If he were simply terminating leases as they expired, that process would likely take a year, and even if he had to evict holdover tenants (i.e., trespassers), he’d probably wind up doing so piecemeal, as leases likely start and finish every month. Especially if the landlord gave immediate notice that leases would not be renewed, this isn’t exactly the same thing as turning a bunch of people out on the street all of a sudden. It gives them time to find a new place to live. So while potentially not the most awesome thing to do, the legal way of doing this isn’t as bad as Green Arrow makes it out to be.

III. Tenants’ Rights

Except that many major cities don’t generally let landlords terminate leases like this. This is less common in mid-sized and smaller cities, but it sometimes shows up there in low-income housing. The idea here is that municipalities have passed ordinances saying that once a tenant is in a particular apartment, he can’t be evicted or have his lease terminated as long as he continues to pay rent and does not violate any other conditions of the lease. Indeed, New York City has made it very difficult to evict even deadbeat tenants.

So if Star City has a tenants’ rights regime similar to New York City’s, the landlord probably couldn’t evict his tenants legally, even at the end of their lease terms. To do so, he’d have to work with the city council, which mightn’t be all that willing to see a few dozen low-income housing units be replaced by a parking lot.

IV. Maintenance

Then there’s the issue of maintenance. This one’s a little easier. Green Arrow accuses the landlord of not spending anything on maintenance, implying that while this may be his legal right, it’s the wrong thing to do. This is closer to being accurate. All residential leases come with an implied “warranty of habitability“, i.e., a warranty that the landlord cannot avoid that the premises are fit for occupation. Unfortunately, the bar for this is very, very low. As long as there are four walls and a roof, electricity, and running water, most municipalities will certify a residence as “habitable.”

For instance, it’s increasingly common for tenants to complain of mold infestation/contamination. This is partly because this sort of diagnosis is relatively recent, and partly because the country’s housing stock is aging so these sorts of problems are more common. Regardless, mold infestation generally does not violate the implied warranty of habitability, and frequently doesn’t even violate local public health codes either. So there are a lot of things that tenants wish landlords would take care of that they’re not actually required to by law. So especially in low-income housing, where the incentive to retain tenants is pretty darned low, slumlords have very little incentive to keep their places decent.

V. Conclusion

So the analysis here is murkier than the story makes it out to be. What we’re told is that the law is on one side, but right is on the other. The reality is not so clean cut. The tenants are clearly breaking the law by attacking the landlord, but they may well be able to insist upon their legal rights to avoid eviction. And even assuming Star City doesn’t create such rights, if the landlord is truly evicting his tenants rather than just letting leases expire, he’s probably breaking the law. Green Arrow is probably right about the maintenance bit, but that’s a less serious complaint than eviction, which as we’ve shown is legally problematic at best.

This significant, because it’s that conundrum—law on one side, right on the other—that causes Hal Jordan to have his existential crisis that launches the next dozen-odd issues. Closer legal analysis might have revealed either that the landlord wasn’t actually as bad a guy as Green Arrow made him out to be, or was actually breaking the law, letting Green Lantern’s previous prejudices and assumptions go unchallenged.

So it’s kind of a weak start to the series. We’ll see how it goes from here.

25 responses to “Green Lantern # 76

  1. As far as tenants’ rights go as regards to not being able to arbitrarily not renew the lease, would the landlord have the ability to change the terms of the lease when it comes up for renewal? Obviously in a rent-control area he would not be able to just increase the rent to something none of them could pay, but what about other things? Could he put, say, a clause requiring the tenants to not allow mold to grow, which would be prohibitively expensive for the tenants to treat? I’m sure it would be pretty easy for him to find things that the tenants couldn’t possibly abide by.

    • I’m not an expert in L/T law, but in a jurisdiction where the ability to terminate occupancy is limited even when the lease ends, I would expect the answer to your question to be that if the changes would exceed what the landlord is allowed to do either in offering new leases or in changing during the term of the lease, that the answer is no, he can’t do that. That would be constructive termination.

  2. Not having the story on hand, are we quite sure that the tenants* are leasing? If this is a plot point, fine, but it may be that he is terminating at the end of monthly rent.

    “Tenant” is also used for monthly renter, perhaps inaccurately.

    • They’re still tenants even if they’re on month-to-month leases, IIRC. Even if those leases are verbal. They’re living on property they don’t own. The only two things they might be are guests or tenants. (“Lessees,” as well, but lessee and tenant are not mutually exclusive.) They’re obviously not guests 🙂 so unless I’ve forgotten more than I should have, they’re more or less definitionally tenants.

      La Wik has reminded me that the proper phrase for this is “tenancy at will.” Even if it’s completely discretionary and can be ended at any time, they’re still tenants.

    • My point here being that a monthly tenant might be evicted at the end of the month, possibly with a legally required 30 (90, whatever) days notice, well within the slumlord’s rights. The tenants then must vacate and find other housing, which is expensive; the slumlord may have had the only or most affordable housing around (at the tenant’s income level). Moving can be expensive and annoying for the evicted, the moral weight is on the slumlord for treating his tenement poorly, but it’s legal.

      I also don’t know if this story involved the tenants being due for eviction, or past due, so then squatters.

  3. Seth Finkelstein

    Perhaps you’re viewing things too abstractly.

    1) Is it clear that the situation in *1970* was as protective for tenant’s rights as it is now?
    (note, New York City is something of an anomaly, e.g. consider rent control )

    2) Are there no possible ways a well-connected wealthy landlord could force the eviction of poor tenants via using some kind of special circumstances provisions?
    (I doubt Green Arrow was going to give a long explanation of the legal maneuvering which led to this confrontation).

    3) Having legal rights is one thing, enforcing them in court is another, especially if you’re not rich (yes, Green Lantern could have said the solution is to fight in court, but Green Arrow would probably have laughed at that).

    • Regarding #3, many mid-to-large cities have decent legal aid centers that provide free legal information and may have attorneys that will take cases pro-bono for those in poverty, particularly where there is a large group of them united. I briefly dealt with the local legal aid center as part of a small project in law school and I was impressed by the dedication and knowledge of the staff there.

      Access to a resource like that certainly doesn’t make it easy for them to enforce their legal rights, but it makes it easier and more plausible, especially as a first recourse before assaulting their landlord.

  4. He’s a slumlord, and they’re working poor. It’s entirely possible that he’s going to illegally evict them and count on them not having the resources to resist.

    There was a fairly recent case in NYC where a slumlord used a constantly-shifting set of dummy corps and family member shell company owners to keep ahead of court orders requiring warranty-of-habitability improvements to the properties — every time the tenants could secure a court order (with the help of legal aid and other tenant-assistant NGOs), the target of the order could just say that the property was now owned by someone else.

    Slumlords have a lot more resources to fight tenancy law than tenants.

    • This is roughly what I was going to say; I’ve *been* a poor person in low-income housing, and my landlord decided he didn’t want any icky queers in his nice (lousy) building, so he refused to renew my lease.

      I said you can’t do that, he said, “So? Sue me then. I have a lawyer on retainer, do you? Meanwhile, I’m going to change the locks.”

      “But then I can’t get my stuff!”

      “Yeah, and again, so what? Sue me. I’ll have thrown it all out by then, and you’ll have nothing to prove that you owned so much as a hairpin.”

      As it turned out, changing the locks was a bad idea, as it meant I could involve the police in breaking into my apartment to get my stuff, and since there was no legal eviction notice or anything, he had little he could do about that.

      But I still ended up homeless for a bit. And if you (not the person I’m replying to! – the mythical “reasonable person”) think the courts – even here in Soviet Canuckistan – are interested in helping homeless people find justice against landlords, then I suggest you spend more time in actual courts, observing the actual justice given out to homeless folk.

  5. Two things:
    “terminating a lease at the end of its period is not an eviction.” Not from a lawyer’s perspective, no. From the perspective of someone needing to find a new place to live but not having cash on hand to pay first and last month’s rent plus a security deposit, it certainly seems close to the same thing.

    The landlord could be voluntarily declaring the property unfit for habitation. In which case the city would require the tenants to move out (perhaps providing assistance, perhaps not) whether the leases were up or not. The landlord would be responsible for damages, but A) only if the low-income residents could afford to find a good lawyer, and pay court costs, and B) that would probably still be cheaper than fixing an old enough building. Of course, there’s a risk that the building could be seized under eminent domain if the city didn’t want to lose the low-income housing, but again, it’d probably be cheaper for them to build new low-income housing from the ground up than to recondition an old building. Even if the city does seize the property, it’s out of the slumlord’s hands, which is what he wanted.

  6. The classic page is, of course, nonsense.

    The trouble is that the comic book characters don’t know they’re in a comic book. As far as they’re concerned, superhero-type threats are as dangerous as other types of threats. So the correct response by Green Lantern, in the context of a world where superhero-type threats are real, is “you know, I saved the whole world from Mongul last week. If the world had been destroyed, the people with the black skins would have been as dead as the people with the white skins. So don’t say I never did anything for you.”

    • Seth Finkelstein

      Ken, that’s a very common response, but I think it’s missing the point on multiple levels. It’s kind of disturbing in a way. I think there’s a subtext of “(White hero) This poor old black man asked me a question about social justice and race, and why I never used my enormous power to fight injustice in that area. The nerve of him! He implied I was racist. I’m not racist. I’m a *world-saving* HERO. So I snarked at this rude guy who obviously didn’t respect what I do as a hero, by ignoring everything in his question about social justice and race, and put him in his place by snidely pointing out to him that *I’M* *A* *HERO*.”

      The guy is speaking colloquial English, not geekspeak with every elided precondition and skipped qualifier being a “gotcha” to show the cleverness of the responder. He’s also doing this in the context of an incident where Green Lantern just intervened in a dispute between a slumlord and tenants, which is hardly a world threat. It’s only “nonsense” if taken in the most simplistic and trivial way. And it’s in fact far more meaningful in a superhero world. Most of us are very limited in what we can do to Change The World, and even a little bit of improvement can come at high personal cost. But if you have a magic ring that can do amazing things just by your willing it so, that’s a whole different level of power. The meta-problem is that question pushes right up against the genre conventions, as noted in the post.

      • If the world was actually being threatened with destruction on a monthly basis, fighting for social justice would be unimportant. We don’t like to think of it that way because supervillains are comic book things and aren’t real, so “fighting for social justice is unimportant” grates on us. But like I said, the characters don’t know that they’re in a comic book; for them, social justice is unimportant.

        Of course, helping slumlords is unimportant too, but that’s not really his regular superhero job. He’s not sent by the Guardians on pro-slumlord missions (or even anti-street-crime missions). He just happened to stumble into this case.

        And in the case of the slumlord, the answer is similar to the answer for saving the world anyway. Just like saving the world saves everyone (both black and white), when he fights street crime he also saves everyone, both black and white. It so happened that in this case he saved a white slumlord, but if it was a black person getting attacked by a white supremacist he’d have done the same thing–you can’t point to one white person out of all the guys he saved and accuse him of only helping whitey as if all the others didn’t exist.

      • Seth Finkelstein

        Obviously the world is safe enough at the time this story is taking place that GL is going to hang out with his buddy and can involve himself in a street scuffle. He *isn’t* declining to do anything when he sees it because he’s too busy Saving The Space Sector. Saying “for them, social justice is unimportant” is scarily close to some real-world objections to the civil-rights movement, that there was a Cold War going on and the Cuban Missile Crisis brought the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation, so against that the opposition to segregation would just have to take a backseat (pun intended). After all, the argument would proceed, President Kennedy was trying to keep the world from blowing up – and if everyone dies, it doesn’t matter if it’s in the front or back seat of a bus. So, GL-like, the argument would then follow that it’s rude and ungrateful to ask President Kennedy what he’s doing for civil-rights – he’s trying to save the Free World, which helps everybody, so the askers who couldn’t see that would then just deserve snark and derision.

        Do you see the problem? If you want to reply, no, no, for the DC world, it’s real, I’d say that runs into the genre trope. If the DC world isn’t so different from us in that everyone doesn’t live in a constant state of shell-shock all the time, then social justice is important (if everyone does live in a constant state of shell-shock all the time, why does anyone care about a parking lot?).

        The point is that GL doesn’t ever seem to think he’s “stumbled into” a situation where the slum is really crappy and he should have his magic ring fix it.

      • Well, yes, but you know what they say: teach a man to fish, and he’s fed for life. Fix his apartment block with your magic ring and you’ll teach him to…um…value his home more, which would just SUCK, right? Or be Communist or something?

      • To people who are being oppressed, dealing with the oppression becomes a primary goal. However, to people who aren’t being oppressed, ending the oppression is simply not as high a priority. In much the same way, violence that is happening just down the block is of more concern to people than is violence happening halfway around the world. One of the reasons the civil rights movement had the success it did, when it did, was because TV news both made it clear and brought it right into the homes of Americans who otherwise would have considered it someone else’s problem.

      • Seth, does Green Lantern have jurisdiction to involve himself in this sort of situation beyond keeping the tenants from lynching the slumlord? GL isn’t the same as Batman or Superman; he is a space police officer, deputized by self-appointed space politicians to patrol space, enforce space laws, fight crime (in space and on planets), and save lives. From the point of view of a cop, it doesn’t matter how corrupt the slumlord is; there is absolutely no way that he or she should let a mob lynch him. If the cop who protected the slumlord had been a regular member of the Star City PD, its probable that several members of the mob could be facing assault charges. Green Lantern is not authorized by the Guardians to enforce local landlord/tenant laws. He is authorized to save lives.

        IMO, this line of questioning would have been more appropriate for Superman. Superman volunteers to fight crime, aliens, giant monsters and to save people during natural disasters. During the Golden Age he would also “volunteer” in other ways: beating up abusive husbands, threatening to throw corrupt politicians off roofs, visiting strike breaking factory owners in the middle of the night and “convincing” them to stop hiring scabs. But by 1970 he had long ago stopped “volunteering” in this manner. Now he should have gotten that question, not Green Lantern.

      • A government is capable of doing a lot of things at once and solving the Cuban Missile Crisis doesn’t preclude doing other things. GL is one person and can’t do as much multitasking. Yes, it’s his off day, but he isn’t really in the habit of fighting crime at all on his off day–he just helped this slumlord because he was right in front of him (and would have helped a black person who was being lynched right in front of him as well). His detractor was trying to imply that there was something particularly bad about helping a slumlord, and about not helping black people, when in fact he is neither helping the slumlord because he’s a slumlord, nor avoiding helping blacks.

        Sure there are problems that primarily affect blacks and which he won’t stop. There are problems which primarily affect whites that he won’t stop either. Also, he isn’t going to go to another world and bring back a cure for cancer, or bring back a carbonaceous asteroid containing a billion tons of oil, thus ending conflict in the Middle East. Superheroes don’t do those things.

        And blaming him for not fixing the slum is a catch-22. If he doesn’t fix the slum, he’s racially insensitive, but if he does fix the slum, the writer is trivializing real-life problems. You could just as well ask why superheroes don’t fix the World Trade Center. It’s not because superheroes are insensitive to the needs of New York City residents. Why didn’t GL go catch Osama bin Laden? Because you can’t write a story about some guy who isn’t real solving a problem that is real, unless you’re making a specific point about it (or in a few other special cases, if you want to nitpick this, but you should know what I mean here).

        As for Superman, my favorite example of why Superman should *not* be out fighting social justice is a commonly reprinted Golden Age story–written by Superman’s original creators during his social justice era–where Superman beats up some athletes for making anti-American comments. The athletes were from an ersatz Nazi Germany and turned out to be spies after the fact, but basically, the very people who created Superman thought it was perfectly fine to have him, in the interest of social justice, violently stop anti-American speech. Having Superman fight for social justice is going to lead to him into fascism in the name of fighting fascism, and even the creators of Superman had him doing it and didn’t realize what they were doing.

      • Ken, I don’t think it’s impossible to write a comic book about superheroes who try to make a difference by fighting for social justice. I just don’t think it is possible to do it in the Bronze Age DC Universe, or possibly in the DC Universe at all. These kinds of stories work exceptionally well when set in the Marvel Universe and written by a skilled writer. Given that the majority of heroes in the Marvel Universe are not nearly as powerful as Superman or Wonder Woman, are more flawed in a general sense, and come from a wider spectrum of social backgrounds, they can be used to comment on social ills more effectively.

      • My Superman example wasn’t Bronze Age DC, it was Golden Age, where he wasn’t that powerful and where he was routinely written by his original creators as a crusader for social justice. And he still managed to do something bad in the name of fighting social justice.

        Any superhero who fights for social justice is going to end up doing something similar, because depending on what level you look at it, either the writer or the character is humanly fallible, and when you ask someone fallible to unilaterally decide how to use illegal physical force against other people for the greater good, the answer is not going to be pretty unless they are *very* restricted in how they use it. Superman beating people up for exercising free speech is probably the clearest example of this I can find, but there are others.

        For instance, an early story has Superman figuring out that a war was created by munitions manufacturers. He forces the two enemy leaders to either personally fight each other or make peace. The result is peace. However, if you do a little historical digging, you discover that at the time of this story, the idea that munitions manufacturers are responsible for wars was an idea in the popular imagination, was the subject of a Senate investigation in the mid-1930’s, and encouraged the belief that the US should not intervene in World War II. In other words, Superman was acting in a way that promoted one side of a real-life political controversy and the writer decided to finagle the story so that what Superman did became justified because his political theory was correct. A political theory, no less, that had some bad real life consequences.

      • You’ve danced around the problem, but never really said it. What, exactly, is a superhero supposed to DO to create social justice?

        If the problem you’re facing is “that big space rock is going to fall from space and obliterate Metropolis/New York, then what Superman/Iron Man should do about it is fairly clear… break the rock before it gets here. Mr. Fantastic can probably whip up some kind of space laser to do the job in a couple of days. GL can fly up there and whack it with a giant green baseball bat. Daredevil, on the other hand, is probably not the right guy for the job, nor Iron Fist. Some heroes have what it takes to deal with the problem, some don’t. (Huh. Just like real life. Some people are doctors or firemen, and some spend their time commenting on blogs about superheroes.)

        But if the problem is “this group of people won’t show any respect to that group of people because of the color of their skin”, what is Superman supposed to do about it? Or any other superhero who lacks mind-control powers (and arguably, they shouldn’t do anything, either, but that’s a different story.) Racial hatred just isn’t a problem that has a super-solution to it.

        Switching gears, what is ANYONE supposed to do about social justice? I mean, I can treat people with dignity and respect regardless of their ancestry, and I can teach my children that way, as well. This, I think, is the limit of my responsibility, of what I owe. I may go beyond that, depending on time, place, and circumstance, but if I do, it is because of generosity, not obligation. In the panel, the old guy seems to think he’s entitled to GL’s assistance in solving the problems he (and black people collectively) face, but he isn’t. I applaud those who dedicate substantial parts of their lives to service to others, but I don’t condemn those who don’t, or those who don’t serve the exact group of people I think need to be served.

      • What, exactly, is a superhero supposed to DO to create social justice?

        I don’t think that’s really a good response. There are plenty of things he could do. For instance, GL could take the side of the mob and participate in beating up the slumlord himself, on the grounds that the slumlord is evil and beating him up is, while against the law, the right thing to do. Likewise, he could stop the police from coming to break up the mob beating up the slumlord. I’m sure he’d be able to force the slumlord to restore the leases if he participated in some good ol’ mob justice.

        Alternately, GL could just stand aside and say “while I normally rescue people being beaten up, this particular person deserves to be beaten up, so I’ll stand by and do nothing.”

        He could even go into space, bring back an asteroid, and make enough money that he could give the poor people enough money to pay high rents.

        Of course, all these choices have problems, especially the first two, but I think it handles your objection–yes there is something he could do.

        I think one of the problems with the original scenario is that the guy is simply making a false accusation (that GL only helps whitey), but he’s being defended on the grounds that he doesn’t really mean what he said. But that makes the guy into a black Rush Limbaugh, saying things that are literally false but whose supporters say you need to look at what he really means.

      • Ken, I used the Bronze Age Superman because Green Lantern #76 takes place at the start of the DCU’s Bronze Age. Obviously a major issue with any fictional character (not just a superhero) who declares that he will fight for social justice is that the buases of the author(s) will come into play. And the authors of the Golden Age Superman were more concerned with keeping a America out of WWII than were the authors of the Golden Age Captain America. (At least before Pearl Harbor; afterwards Superman became more patriotic than Cap.) Gail Simone has different views than Bill Willingham; Frank Miller is not Warren Ellis.

        That being said there is a way for different heroes to approach the situation in Green Lantern #75. She-Hulk could offer to represent the tenants pro-bono. Iron Man could offer to buy the apartment building and renovate it. Spider-Man could “rescue” the slumlord from the mob by webbing him to the outside of the highest floor of the building, casually mention that the webbing will disolve in an hour, so maybe they could discuss a way to resolve this matter peacefully. The Punisher would just shoot the slumlord, then burn the tenenment down so that no drug dealers or gang members ever use it for criminal activities.

        And Captain America would rescue the slumlord from the mob; while the slumlord is crouching behind Cap’s shield, Cap would glare at the jerk, and demand that he show him a valid deed for the tenement, plus a court order showing that the tenants have not paid rent. Cap would ask the Falcon and the Black Widow to help him with calming down the crowd and then suddenly punch out a member of HYDRA/AIM/the Secret Empire/the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants/the MLF/the Masters of Evil hiding in the crowd, that would turn out to be behind the whole thing. At least that’s what Ed Brubaker would have written.

  7. A lot of leases also have clauses that void the lease (upon 30 or 60 days notice) in event of sale of the building. So the landlord could have announced Landlord Realty Associates was selling the building to Brotherinlaw Realty (voiding all the leases) knowing that Brotherinlaw Realty would lease the land back to Landlord Realty Associates to set up as a parking lot. Which isn’t precisely eviction, unless they refuse to move, but would work out to the same result for someone who might have lived in the building for 40 years and now has a month to move out.

  8. Pingback: Green Lantern # 76, cont’d | Law and the Multiverse

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *