<p>if i own the property, why can’t i rent it out to whomever i like the best? i remember some rich guy who bought this entire town and only sold houses to presbyterians (i think, but i know it’s one specific religion). i think he was allowed to do that. why is renting out houses any different?</p>
<p>You can, the law just cant endorse your doing so. De facto discrimination will always exist.</p>
<p>Because to do so goes against one’s basic human rights and would prohibit those people from having equal opportunity. People have no control over those three attributes so why would anyone want to hold it against them?</p>
<p>Landlords do…all the time. My brother talked to one who won’t rent his house out to boys because he thinks girls are cleaner, will take better care of the house, and are less likely to have parties.</p>
<p>There is not a federal law to protect rights of taxpayers re housing/jobs, who happen to be GLBT, although some local laws do so</p>
<p>Actually, I just went through this experience - in spite of well documented excellent credit scores through all three CRAs, spotless background, clean driving record, and documented income, a landlord refused to rent to me because I am a single female parent, and he told me exactly that. He actually said “how can you possibly make this much money - even <em>I</em> don’t make this much money” (as if somehow my income is scaled to his [???}). I questioned him further and he admitted point blank that he is more comfortable renting to a married couple. </p>
<p>His reasoning isn’t totally off-base: he depends heavily on the rent money to pay for nursing care for his dying mother. If the rent isn’t paid, he cannot pay those salaries. He is more comfortable renting in a situation where there are two incomes, in the event that one person experiences a job loss, the other is hopefully still working, so, the rent has a chance to still be paid. (The fact that I am a majority principal in a highly profitable, sustainable business with a global client base is beyond his comprehension.)</p>
<p>Curious, I read the law, and it says that one cannot discriminate on the basis of many things including familial status, however, there are exemptions: if the landlord owns three or fewer properties, the landlord is exempt and can refuse to rent to anyone for any reason s/he wishes. I did not check any further but I am pretty sure if I checked the county property appraisers website I would find that this gentleman owns < three properties. </p>
<p>But even if he owned dozens of properties, I would not have sued him - life is too short and I don’t want to spend my time that way. Oddly, he sent me a Christmas card with a nice note inside - it seemed to say “please please don’t sue me” - whatever. </p>
<p>I actually think the < three component of the law is o.k. I own one house, someday I may get up the nerve - and the time - to actually rent it. When and if I ever do, I will certainly be very selective, but more for personal reasons - it’s my home, the first real estate I’ve ever purchased, and a lot of wonderful memories are tied to it. Plus, my neighbors are very picky people, and they take excellent care of their properties, and I don’t want to do anything that might upset them or make them uncomfortable. Last, a tenant would need to “fit” into the community, ie build friendships and social life, and be happy, or, they won’t want to stay around. I cannot see that I would discriminate on the basis of race, religion, etc., but I would probably be very discriminatory about issues such as likelihood to fit into the social fabric of the community, personal presence, appearance/cleanliness, type of work and industry, ethics, morals, etc.</p>
<p>
But isn’t this perspective what kept blacks out of white neighborhoods, Catholics out of Protestant neighborhoods, etc. that resulted in the anti-discrimination laws being passed? Landlords were drawing these conclusions based on those factors readily evident - race, gender, marital status, etc. There were some who just assumed that a black couldn’t ‘fit in’ and would deny them even though they didn’t really know the person. It’s very difficult to ascertain the attributes of fit in the community, ethics, morals, etc. from an application or short interview.</p>
<p>First of all, the answer depends on in which State you live. Federal law exempts certain landlords but some States make the federal laws applicable to all landlords regardless of how many units offered for lease. </p>
<p>The Federal Housing Act prohibits discrimination by a landlord based on based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status or handicap. Sexual orientation is not covered by the Federal Act, so if you don’t want to lease to gays, knock yourself out (unless there is a State law to the contrary).</p>
<p>In most cases there all sorts of persons you can discriminate against. Landlords don’t have to lease to left-handed people, smokers, graduates of the rival of the landlord’s college, people with brown eyes, people taller than the landlord, etc. If I were a landlord ready to discriminate, I would never lease to a tenant whose last name started with the letter R. Why? Because I could.</p>
<p>I’ve been looking recently at apartment listings, and I’ve been annoyed that many landlords in the area require a local co-signer for graduate students who rent. </p>
<p>I don’t particularly understand how this is fair – I could, after all, be making the same salary in some entry-level position as I am as a graduate student, and wouldn’t need a local co-signer in that case.</p>
<p>UCSD<em>UCLA</em>Dad (I apologize for mispelling your username in the other thread) you’re absolutely right. It IS very prejudiced, as in prejudge. That’s probably why I haven’t moved forward with renting my house. The thing is - I KNOW my neighbors very well, and I know this community. And there are certainly people who simply would not fit in here long term, and, in fact, I’m one of those people - I don’t fit in either. Never have - and don’t particularly want to. I bought my house ten years ago from the long married, childless, uber-conservative chief of police - and that’s who my neighbors want to live next to - they do not want to live next to me, and they certainly have no use for my daughter. My neighbors don’t care much for catholics, or children, and they are especially suspicious of single parents. But it’s a bit easier for me - I have a too-busy social life outside the community; I travel a LOT, and absolutely do not care what other people think, say, or do - so their attitudes don’t impact me. I’m very happy here because I do not care who lives next door. </p>
<p>But I can guarantee that a prospective tenant who lives and works a more traditional lifestyle, and who has feelings and will want to make friends, will have issues fitting in here, UNLESS they’re cut from the same cloth. My neighbors will drive them insane. They’ll be miserable. </p>
<p>Now, I don’t like my neighbors very much. We’re not friends and never will be. But we do function together cooperatively, and to a person they do take excellent care of their properties, and I do respect their concern for property values and safety. But when I consider selecting a tenant, what is the point of allowing another person to get themselves into a situation where they will not be very happy? Unless I can find someone like the police chief, it’s not going to be a good fit. It’s sort of like selling someone a product that you know will not meet their needs. </p>
<p>Very difficult issue.</p>
<p>Is it fair to discriminate against someone if they’re Section 8? My parents just turned down a prospective tenant because they’re Section 8. Mom and Dad feel pretty bad about it, but they also don’t want any hassle with state money (could be cut off at any time, you’re stuck with how ever much the state decides to pay, etc.).</p>
<p>(Here is Wikipedia’s definition of Section 8: a type of Federal assistance provided by the United States Federal government dedicated to sponsoring subsidized housing for low-income families and individuals. It is formally known as the Housing Choice Voucher Program, but is still commonly referred to as simply Section 8.)</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>This thread feels like a “Gotcha” –> a set-up for another tiresome argument about Affirmative Action. As in “If it’s illegal to use race as factor in renting, why is it legal to use it in college admissions?” (sigh…)</p>
<p>coureur, you are the first one to mention AA, i think. if this is your idea of avoiding talking about it, then i say your idea stinks</p>
<p>If landlords are allowed to discriminate on the bases you describe, and if all of the landlords do it, then entire categories of people could find themselves without anywhere to live. </p>
<p>That wouldn’t be reasonable, would it?</p>
<p>^^^ that’s a bold assumption to make, that all landlords, if allowed, won’t like other races/gender/religion/whatever.</p>
<p>my question is, why can’t i do whatever i want with MY property? if i can refuse rent to whomever that owns pets, why can’t i refuse rent to whomever listens to jazz/rap/classical or eats taco/rice/fast food (in each case effectively shutting doors against a large portion of some specific race/culture)?</p>
<p>“i” is a generic i</p>
<p>because people can control whether they own pets but they have no control over their race. You can’t shut doors against a particular race. For instance, I have a rental property and becuase it is small-2 bd/1ba and the building is old, I prefer to rent to a single person. I simply don’t think the plumbing will withstand four showers a day. However, I will rent to a single person of any race. The “why can’t i do whatever I want” is limited to the fact that you can do whatever you want as long as you don’t infringe on someone else’s legal rights. People of every race have the right to find decent housing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think the operative word there is “could.” But in reality they won’t. Because if their money is green, most landlords won’t care what color their skin is. Particularly a landlord who makes a living at renting, as he or she is not likely to live with or near the tenants. If a prospective tenant has good credit & proof of employment & a willingness to pay market rates for rent, he will not go homeless. Even though LTS was not welcomed by one landlord in her search, I am sure she was seen as a prime tenant by many others.
ebeeee, the problem is often income-based more so than race-based. As desirable areas see prices rocket upward, lower-income people can get shut out. It can appear to be racial discrimination, but in actuality, it is market forces.</p>
<p>Re: Section 8. I’ve often read that landlords like Section 8 because the money is guaranteed. Neighbors don’t like it because there is a history of the Section 8 tenants having less of an incentive to treat property well. It is near impossible to evict problem Section 8 tennants if issues occur, and absent landlords are not always hands-on enough with their properties to nip problems in the bud & properly manage thier apartments & houses.</p>
<p>I think we all hold prejudices of some type that would impact our decision about desirable renters. If the last tenant you had was, say, Polish, and cooked traditional Polish dishes and the smell wafted through the apartment building, you might be leery of renting to another Polish tenant if you didn’t care for the food odor. The next Polish tenant could be a raw food aficionado who never would turn on a stove, but that “ski” on the end of her name might make you frown on her.</p>
<p>innocentstalker (innocent, indeed!), The only reason a landlord can’t discriminate is because in some localities there are laws against it. Why are there laws against it? Because the government, in its infinite wisdom, imposes collective will and morality on others. Have you ever heard of rent control? Seems to me that is even a more basic question: Why can’t a landlord charge whatever rent the market will bear? In some rent controled areas a landlord must operate his own property at a loss so that his tenants can live at an affordable rent. There are many areas where government intrusion takes precedence over individual property rights. Housing is viewed somewhat like a utility. The government (through laws) wouldn’t, or shouldn’t allow individuals to be denied electricity or water or phone service based on their race or religion or other factor.</p>
<p>In every jurisdiction that I’m aware of, you can select tenants by any criteria you want if you’re going to be living together. But if you have a rental property across town, you’re a participant in the general marketplace and you have to play by the rules…although enforcement is another matter.</p>
<p>Re enforcement: I met someone whose job it is to sting landlords who discriminate…</p>