Feds Warn Landlords About Banning Ex-Offenders

[realibrad]

Doesn't seem like that at all. Someone denied a chance at good and/or affordable housing is very likely to have a higher recidivism rate, no?

Yes.

It is logical for landlords to avoid people with a criminal background, right?

Yes, because they have already shown to be a criminal vs someone who does not as they have a higher chance of not. It might be true that they have not been caught yet, but it is still a greater chance that they are less likely to commit a crime vs someone who already has.

Therefore, individual logical actions likely lead to additional crimes being committed. That's bad. Sounds like the perfect time to utilize state power.

So, because society benefits as a whole, we should place all of the burden of fixing an issue caused by a racist legal system? Why are landlords the ones to fix this issue and take on more risk? Very far from perfect at the very least.

I agree that people are more likely to commit crimes if they cannot get basic things, but why make landlords who had nothing to do with the crap legal system bare the cost?

The fact that other races are disproportionately criminalized is an entirely separate issue from this fundamental problem. The racism present in our criminal justice system is indeed a mark of the state failing, but this is actually a case of the feds stepping in to clean up the individual states' mess.

Yes, but doing what government is good at. Getting others to clean up a mess it made.

(states incarcerate the overwhelming majority of prisoners in the US) In this case greater centralized power is providing yet another benefit, to roll back some of the fuckery of more local government.

Centralized power is making others fix a problem caused by smaller centralized power? Why not have the larger power make the smaller power clean up its act? Why place the burden of fixing it on people who did not cause it? All you have done is argue for a system where those who break the shit are not held accountable.

 

[realibrad]

Yes, a problem tenant can be a big problem for a landlord, but I'm actually not terribly convinced that a prior criminal record makes someone that poor a business prospect if they meet your other requirements of income, rental history, etc..

I guarantee that someone who has been convicted of a crime is more likely to commit more crime than someone who has not been. It might be small, but why take the risk as a landlord? They are not allowed to charge more for a criminal background. If you have the option between someone with vs without, why would you take the person with?

 

[fskimospy]

Yes.

Yes, because they have already shown to be a criminal vs someone who does not as they have a higher chance of not. It might be true that they have not been caught yet, but it is still a greater chance that they are less likely to commit a crime vs someone who already has.



So, because society benefits as a whole, we should place all of the burden of fixing an issue caused by a racist legal system? Why are landlords the ones to fix this issue and take on more risk? Very far from perfect at the very least.

I agree that people are more likely to commit crimes if they cannot get basic things, but why make landlords who had nothing to do with the crap legal system bare the cost?


Yes, but doing what government is good at. Getting others to clean up a mess it made.



Centralized power is making others fix a problem caused by smaller centralized power? Why not have the larger power make the smaller power clean up its act? Why place the burden of fixing it on people who did not cause it? All you have done is argue for a system where those who break the shit are not held accountable.

As I said, the racism present in the criminal justice system is an entirely separate issue from the issue of finding housing for those with prior convictions.

Even if the states administered justice perfectly this issue would remain that having people discriminate against previous convicts is very likely to lead to society-wide increases in crime. Individually rational choices lead to a worse off scenario for everyone. This seems like exactly the sort of problem that governments exist to take care of, no?

 

[fskimospy]

I guarantee that someone who has been convicted of a crime is more likely to commit more crime than someone who has not been. It might be small, but why take the risk as a landlord? They are not allowed to charge more for a criminal background. If you have the option between someone with vs without, why would you take the person with?

All other things being equal, sure. All other things are very often not equal though, and I'm quite sure that there is some area of income, time since conviction, family situation, age, etc at which a prior convict is a smaller crime risk than someone without a prior conviction.

Again though as I said, it is individually logical for every landlord to exclude convicts (or to charge them higher rates). Hence why we need the government to step in.

 

[NetWareHead]

Yes, a problem tenant can be a big problem for a landlord, but I'm actually not terribly convinced that a prior criminal record makes someone that poor a business prospect if they meet your other requirements of income, rental history, etc. I'd be interested to see what data is available once you control for those. Regardless, the law doesn't prevent you from excluding someone with a conviction, it just requires that you take its severity into account. That seems very reasonable.

Im going to stick to my point that the final determination should be left up to the LL. Whats troubling to me is that this law is not well defined. You mention that I can exclude based on the severity of the crime. Whose the one to judge on what constitutes a "severe crime"?

What if I get a potential with a string of DWIs in the last decade? Lets say they never killed someone for sake of this example. Some people will say this is and others will say this isnt a severe crime. My take: these people IMO are unreliable. They get a DWI every so often and end up in jail. When you are in jail and paying lawyers & fines, the rent goes unpaid. Meaning I now have to evict him.

Lets say crimes that nearly everyone will agree is severe: murder, crimes dealing with children, arson. Can I deny for these crimes and not get much pushback? Probably yes.

What about something not so severe: Misdemeanors, trafic violations, non-violent crimes, stupid shit you might have done long ago when in college etc... I might let some of this stuff slide and rent to you.

My point is that now I have to defend myself against this vaguely written law: "severity of the crime". And if the potential tenant doesnt agree with me and wants to sue, he now has an avenue to pursue litigation. Whereas before, the lawsuit could be thrown out by most judges.

I guess what I mean is that they are a protected class in one very specific area but not a protected class more broadly.

I guess since landlording is my business, I tend to look at this new push to include felonies as a protected class as a concern to my livelyhood and require adjusting my own business practices.

 

[fskimospy]

It all depends on the felony to be honest. But I want the final say to be with the landlord. I cant think of 10+ crimes of the top of my head I dont want in my tenants.

The understanding I got from the article is that if this idea sticks, past felonies cannot be used to deny a potential tenant. Which can open me up to litigation. So I'd have to use other legal reasons to deny a potential.

From the article:

In the case of applicants with convictions, property owners must prove that the exclusion is justified and consider factors like the nature and severity of the crime in assessing prospective tenants before excluding someone.

Mr. Castro said housing bans against former offenders were common.

“Right now, many housing providers use the fact of a conviction, any conviction, regardless of what it was for or how long ago it happened, to indefinitely bar folks from housing opportunities,” Mr. Castro said in a statement. “Many people who are coming back to neighborhoods are only looking for a fair chance to be productive members, but blanket policies like this unfairly deny them that chance.”

It's very clear from the article that only blanket bans are illegal. Past felonies can 100% be used to deny a tenant.

 

[UglyCasanova]

I'm against effectively not allowing landlords to guage the risk of the tenets they let into their property, even if regulation may have a benefit to society. The greater good does not outweigh stripping individual freedoms and rights, and that includes property rights.

I do agree that there is a major problem with rehabilitating criminals back into society and it is in all of our interest to address that, I disagree that the government should force a landlord to turn a blind eye on an obvious risk factor when vetting their tenets however.

 

[fskimospy]

Im going to stick to my point that the final determination should be left up to the LL. Whats troubling to me is that this law is not well defined. You mention that I can exclude based on the severity of the crime. Whose the one to judge on what constitutes a "severe crime"?

What if I get a potential with a string of DWIs in the last decade? Lets say they never killed someone for sake of this example. Some people will say this is and others will say this isnt a severe crime. My take: these people IMO are unreliable. They get a DWI every so often and end up in jail. When you are in jail and paying lawyers & fines, the rent goes unpaid. Meaning I now have to evict him.

Lets say crimes that nearly everyone will agree is severe: murder, crimes dealing with children, arson. Can I deny for these crimes and not get much pushback? Probably yes.

What about something not so severe: Misdemeanors, trafic violations, non-violent crimes, stupid shit you might have done long ago when in college etc... I might let some of this stuff slide and rent to you.

My point is that now I have to defend myself against this vaguely written law: "severity of the crime". And if the potential tenant doesnt agree with me and wants to sue, he now has an avenue to pursue litigation. Whereas before, the lawsuit could be thrown out by most judges.

Yes, before this you could exclude them based on prior criminal history alone and now you can't. I can see how this would be frustrating for you, but again I still haven't seen a single viable alternative.

I think we all agree that being unable to find adequate housing makes someone more likely to commit future crimes, right? Society clearly views additional crimes as bad things. So, how do we prevent this? I'm sincerely open to other ideas, but I can't think of one. Are you willing to pay significantly more in taxes to build large amounts of federal housing for the formerly incarcerated?

I guess since landlording is my business, I tend to look at this new push to include felonies as a protected class as a concern to my livelyhood and require adjusting my own business practices.

Makes sense.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm against effectively not allowing landlords to guage the risk of the tenets they let into their property, even if regulation may have a benefit to society. The greater good does not outweigh stripping individual freedoms and rights, and that includes property rights.

I do agree that there is a major problem with rehabilitating criminals back into society and it is in all of our interest to address that, I disagree that the government should force a landlord to turn a blind eye on an obvious risk factor when vetting their tenets however.

Nothing in this regulation forces landlords to turn a blind eye to this risk factor, it only prohibits blanket bans against prior convictions.

Honestly, blanket bans like this are probably stupid anyway as who do you think is more likely to pay the rent, a 35 year old guy with a wife and kids who makes $70k but had a conviction 10 years back or a 19 year old high school dropout making $30k with no priors?

 

[Genx87]

Since society has decided to put so many in cages. Maybe society should bare the costs of housing people by building public housing. This is one of those issues that is a real problem. But I also think forcing landlords to take on the risk because of poor public policy is wrong. If society wants to jail people, costs are involved with that. Including housing them when they are released.

 

[Darwin333]

I'm kind of torn on this. On one hand I firmly believe that once a person has completed the sentence imposed on them by the state, with very few exceptions like pedophiles, all of their rights and privileges should be restored. We have decided that they have paid their debt to society. The article also makes a good point, if they can't even get decent housing they are almost forced back into the criminal world. Sticking all of the ex-cons in a few places that will have them just doesn't end well for anyone either.

OTOH, a landlord should have the right and hell I would go so far as to say the due diligence to protect their property. What if they get someone who has recently been convicted of stealing all of the appliances from their last rental? What if they have a long history of domestic abuse, should their right to live there outweigh the neighbors rights to enjoy their home in peace? If a landlord knowingly rents the unit next to mine to a guy with a history of violent criminal activity and hurts me and/or my family can I sue the landlord?

This is a tough one for me, I can't think of a good answer that is fair to everyone involved...

 

[fskimospy]

Since society has decided to put so many in cages. Maybe society should bare the costs of housing people by building public housing. This is one of those issues that is a real problem. But I also think forcing landlords to take on the risk because of poor public policy is wrong. If society wants to jail people, costs are involved with that. Including housing them when they are released.

Do you really think that huge housing projects for the formerly incarcerated are a good idea?

Housing projects in general seem to be a pretty terrible plan, I can hardly see why concentrating felons would lead to a better outcome than concentrating poverty as current ones do.

 

[realibrad]

As I said, the racism present in the criminal justice system is an entirely separate issue from the issue of finding housing for those with prior convictions.

Even if the states administered justice perfectly this issue would remain that having people discriminate against previous convicts is very likely to lead to society-wide increases in crime. Individually rational choices lead to a worse off scenario for everyone. This seems like exactly the sort of problem that governments exist to take care of, no?

Fine, but again, why make the landlords take on this burden? Land lords to not just have to worry about 1 person many times. If you have a family who lives in a unit, and a person with a criminal background applies, then the family has a big incentive to move out. You are forcing the landlord to take on that burden which can impact his income and giving him no other option.

By trying to help one issue, you bring on others to people that did nothing wrong. You are forcing people to do business that is not in their best interest. Why should society get the benefit and the landlord eat all the risk?

 

[fskimospy]

Fine, but again, why make the landlords take on this burden? Land lords to not just have to worry about 1 person many times. If you have a family who lives in a unit, and a person with a criminal background applies, then the family has a big incentive to move out. You are forcing the landlord to take on that burden which can impact his income and giving him no other option.

By trying to help one issue, you bring on others to people that did nothing wrong. You are forcing people to do business that is not in their best interest. Why should society get the benefit and the landlord eat all the risk?

That seems like an argument against regulation of any kind. Regulations disproportionately affect people engaging in a certain type of business to the betterment of society.

 

[Genx87]

Do you really think that huge housing projects for the formerly incarcerated are a good idea?

Housing projects in general seem to be a pretty terrible plan, I can hardly see why concentrating felons would lead to a better outcome than concentrating poverty as current ones do.

No I actually dont think it is a good idea. But I also think throwing so many in jail is also a bad idea. My point is society is making a bad policy decision by labeling so many felons and tossing them in jail. Having society pay for their housing may change their tune. Either way I think society forcing landlords to take on this risk from poor policy is ridiculous.

 

[Darwin333]

Since society has decided to put so many in cages. Maybe society should bare the costs of housing people by building public housing. This is one of those issues that is a real problem. But I also think forcing landlords to take on the risk because of poor public policy is wrong. If society wants to jail people, costs are involved with that. Including housing them when they are released.

Yeah, lets put all of the ex-cons in one place, what could possibly go wrong?

You did touch on the bigger issue which is we put way too many people in jail in this country. For some reason we really really like locking people up.

 

[realibrad]

That seems like an argument against regulation of any kind. Regulations disproportionately affect people engaging in a certain type of business to the betterment of society.

Its an argument against regulation that places an unfair burden on a few to help everyone else. Your argument is that its okay because it will help people over all. Its bad when you make that argument for paying people low wages, but its wrong when it comes to this?

So, its okay to hurt one group for the benefit of society? I do not doubt that for many it will just mean letting in some people and no harm will be done, but why victimize the others?

Its these types of things that push out small ownership and helps larger owners. Small owners need to reduce risk a lot more than a larger owner. Large companies can eat a few bad customers but not small owners. So, if you want to start a business, you just lost another avenue.

 

[fskimospy]

Its an argument against regulation that places an unfair burden on a few to help everyone else. Your argument is that its okay because it will help people over all. Its bad when you make that argument for paying people low wages, but its wrong when it comes to this?

What's 'unfair'? How do we define that?

I'm not sure what you mean in reference to my arguments about low wages.

So, its okay to hurt one group for the benefit of society? I do not doubt that for many it will just mean letting in some people and no harm will be done, but why victimize the others?

We do that all the time with almost every law we pass. Public accommodation laws prevent businesses from serving only who they want to. Why should we hurt them for the benefit of society? Anti pollution regulations cost factories way more than other businesses even though the world needs manufactured goods. Why should we victimize them?

Its these types of things that push out small ownership and helps larger owners. Small owners need to reduce risk a lot more than a larger owner. Large companies can eat a few bad customers but not small owners. So, if you want to start a business, you just lost another avenue.

This is the best argument I've heard so far against this sort of thing but I still think it overestimates the impact. All that is being banned here are blanket exclusions, which should still provide small landlords plenty of room to screen out risky tenants. If nothing else, a blanket ban would be almost impossible to prove for a small landlord absent a checkbox on the sheet as you wouldn't have enough cases to establish a pattern of discrimination.

 

[OutHouse]

A misdemeanor or something stupid done in your college days (probably related to alcohol), I might be able to let slide. But a felony is another ballgame.

Martha Stewart has a felony, you would not rent to her?

 

[1prophet]

From the article:



It's very clear from the article that only blanket bans are illegal. Past felonies can 100% be used to deny a tenant.

Let the Onus be on the federal government and require every landlord run the name of the potential tenant through a government checklist, and the government then decides if the felony on record if any meets the criteria of being denied a rental, thus absolving the landlord of any potential lawsuits or discriminatory suits similar to how we have the TSA decide if anyone can board a plane.

All the landlord has to do is keep a record of the applicant and the governments response and the landlord pays the fee similar to a background check they do today.

As long as there is a record of the landlord going through the government agency, the landlord is absolved of any responsibility of the tenants actions due to their prior criminal history, and any potential discriminatory lawsuits government or private if the landlord refuses to rent if the government response says he can only refuse based on governments evaluation of the potential tenant.

The landlord must give the potential tenant a copy or web address of the acceptance or refusal in case the potential tenant wants to challenge it.

 

[realibrad]

What's 'unfair'? How do we define that?

Making someone take an extra burden without their consent to benefit other groups.

I'm not sure what you mean in reference to my arguments about low wages.

It will just cause a tangent so ill leave it for now.

We do that all the time with almost every law we pass. Public accommodation laws prevent businesses from serving only who they want to. Why should we hurt them for the benefit of society? Anti pollution regulations cost factories way more than other businesses even though the world needs manufactured goods. Why should we victimize them?

All of those are to stop bigoted or unfair discrimination. The argument for serving people is that its immoral to do that because it does not actually hurt people to not be racist. Pollution is an expense that companies levy onto people that did not willingly engage in a transaction.

Here we have a landlord who may lose people who dont want to live next to a criminal. You force the land lord to lose money and possibly out of the market because it might benefit society over all.

The two examples you listed are crazy complex but its not apples to apples here.

This is the best argument I've heard so far against this sort of thing but I still think it overestimates the impact. All that is being banned here are blanket exclusions, which should still provide small landlords plenty of room to screen out risky tenants. If nothing else, a blanket ban would be almost impossible to prove for a small landlord absent a checkbox on the sheet as you wouldn't have enough cases to establish a pattern of discrimination.

So, your argument is that a landlord can exclude people for anything other than a criminal record? So if a person is anything below a felon then people should get over it? Or are you saying that the landlord should be pushed out of the market when other tenants leave because they dont want to deal with the perceived risk?

 

[fskimospy]

Making someone take an extra burden without their consent to benefit other groups.

Okay so all regulations are 'unfair'. This is not a convincing argument to me.

All of those are to stop bigoted or unfair discrimination. The argument for serving people is that its immoral to do that because it does not actually hurt people to not be racist. Pollution is an expense that companies levy onto people that did not willingly engage in a transaction.

Here we have a landlord who may lose people who dont want to live next to a criminal. You force the land lord to lose money and possibly out of the market because it might benefit society over all.

The two examples you listed are crazy complex but its not apples to apples here.

In your perception it doesn't hurt them but who are you to tell people what hurts them and what does not? What if people want to preserve a certain type of culture or a certain type of town?

As for pollution, are you saying that if everyone purchased the same amount of electricity from a power plant that we could no longer regulate it?

So, your argument is that a landlord can exclude people for anything other than a criminal record? So if a person is anything below a felon then people should get over it? Or are you saying that the landlord should be pushed out of the market when other tenants leave because they dont want to deal with the perceived risk?

No, as the article stated landlords can exclude people for having a criminal record, they just can't have blanket policies for doing so that exclude all other factors.

 

[NetWareHead]

Martha Stewart has a felony, you would not rent to her?

Interesting question. Her guilty conviction of securities fraud and obstruction of justice does bother me, but not like a violent crime conviction would. I'm also leaning heavily on the fact that I like Martha Stewart, watch her show and admire her cooking.

Realistically, that wont ever happen. She is loaded and has a place far more glamourous than I have to offer. If she were not Martha Stewart and a lady with her income walked in but had this black mark on her record, I'd give it a serious pause and would also get some outsde advice before ultimately deciding.

 

[Moonbeam]

Interesting question. Her guilty conviction of securities fraud and obstruction of justice does bother me, but not like a violent crime conviction would. I'm also leaning heavily on the fact that I like Martha Stewart, watch her show and admire her cooking.

Realistically, that wont ever happen. She is loaded and has a place far more glamourous than I have to offer. If she were not Martha Stewart and a lady with her income walked in but had this black mark on her record, I'd give it a serious pause and would also get some outsde advice before ultimately deciding.

You're like a prostitute. You would rent your properties to a felon at what, say 3 times the going rate, 5 times, 10 times. Somewhere your self interest in keeping yourself from renting to felons would be overcome by your self interest in money. That should give you some insight into the 'principled' nature of your stance.

 

[Enigmoid]

You're like a prostitute. You would rent your properties to a felon at what, say 3 times the going rate, 5 times, 10 times. Somewhere your self interest in keeping yourself from renting to felons would be overcome by your self interest in money. That should give you some insight into the 'principled' nature of your stance.

So basically like insurance companies and people with a poor driving record?