There may be some places in the world where there is no civilization, which would welcome you and your anti-civilization mentality.

They're just indicating who holds the bag.

"If you don't think the property is worth the rent you're presently paying, mediation services are available."

Well exactly. That's all I'm saying. Mediation services are going to have their hands full. That's why I'm interested in watching this presentation.

It all comes down to the reality that if you buy a service, and that service is not provided as stated, you are being taken advantage of. The person taking the advantage in this scenario is the landlord. That is what prompted the term "tyranical".

Sure it is sad about the landlord's change from long-term profit to a short-term loss. Earlier someone sighed that perhaps the landlord chose not to buy flood insurance, and you said it again - "what if she can't afford the loss of revenue?". But the competence of the landlord's decisions and investments (hopefully they are prepared for such eventualities) are their own, and are not something a tenant should care one whit about. Maybe being a landlord isn't the right business for the landlord to be in. Whether a landlord has saved up enough money to go back into business quickly or not, or how they decided when faced with their choice about whether or not to buy flood insurance, is none of a tenant's business - literally, it is NOT THEIR BUSINESS. Appeals to emotion are fine, but not relevant.

Your suggestion that a tenant should break their lease is absurd. If you are a landlord - and you must be, or you wouldn't be defending taking advantage of tenants - then you know darn well that would affect the tenant's credit score (unless you mean taking the landlord to court and winning, which would cost more than the rent).

Lastly, both you and I were wrong when we said that the landlord is the only one that suffers a loss. I failed to acknowledge that tenants lose possessions. I did not (not anything important), but of course many did and so the notion that landlords are suffering and suffering alone is far from reality.

Your first question is irrelevant, as you well know. Your second question is real - what if she argued enhanced value due to the flood. In that case, she'd have to find some way to keep a judge from laughing in her face. Really are all landlord-defenders idiots?

Landlords want steady income, so they can continue to benefit from their investment, and want it especially now that they have unexpected expenses.

All of those are great recommendations of what she should do, though the best suggestion is a deduction. Regarding how to calculate the diminished value, Colorado law says that should be negotiated between tenant and landlord. Of course market factors would apply - if there is value in something in the eyes of the market, it has a higher cost, or a lower cost if that element is not present. Yes, the landlord is the only one who should suffer a loss due to the flood. That is rather obvious. Why would someone who has no capital investment in the property be expected to take a loss on something they do not own? Really.

Will there be a live stream? If not, will a recording be posted and if so where?

Like many Boulder renters, my landlord is refusing to provide me with a deduction for the "diminished value of the premises" because she feels that the change from carpeted floor to bare concrete (and the smell of mildew from damp drywall, and the removal of the bathroom sink) is "purely cosmetic". She says that since FEMA has not declared the place uninhabitable, she owes me no consideration whatsoever. These tyrants need to be stopped.

Sometimes it feels like consultants are simply scammers who look at the way things are being done, and then simply recommend doing something that contrasts.

"Shopping center security officers did not notice anything unusual before the burglary..."

Or during, apparently.