Feds Warn Landlords About Banning Ex-Offenders

[NetWareHead]

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.

😕 what are you talking about 3x, 5x 10x?

And principles? Who is talking principles here? My issue with felons has nothing to do with passing judgement on their lives... This is about money and business.

My problems with felons is their likelyhood to re-offend and mess up the landlord-tenant relationship I'm trying to establish. Felons made some dumb choices and typically are risky to do business with.

 

[interchange]

It seems to me that the most effective way to address this disparity would be through an advertisement telling the tales of felons (black and white) whom have made significant rehabilitative effort, talking about the restrictions in freedoms that have resulted from a distant choice and using it as a springboard to fight harder for them. Our government has responsibility to seek fairness, and they cannot make progress under the belief that they might succeed absolutely.

The effect, I think, displayed here is a response to the indictment that people are insufficient judges of potential tenants, and this is complicated further in the notion that their current judgement is racist. True or not, it is bound to be felt this way, and if so then it will be either disregarded or inappropriately applied for fear of being sued or otherwise labeled for racism.

The more horrifying tragedy is that there will be landlords with bad tenants who will happen to be black and happen to be felons, and, independent of association, this will merely confirm to them that they were right in their outrage to begin with.

If felons are a protected group under the law, then it would be prudent to make their record inaccessible outside of a courtroom, and even then restricted by demonstration of its relevance.

 

[Viper GTS]

If you (NetWareHead) feel that strongly about this then maybe you should be looking for a different line of work/investment/whatever this is to you.

The rest of us avoid doing what you do specifically because we don't want to deal with the hassles, what makes you special that you get the upside with none of the down?

Viper GTS

 

[Slew Foot]

Eh, if something comes up on a criminal background check, just deny them based upon something else in their application.

 

[zinfamous]

Sounds bad and unfair for the landlord--and I think it is--but I think I know what is going on here.

Listening to Freakonomics radio yesterday, Dubner was doing a story about tipping. One of the contributors was an economics professor who's thesis and career-long interest focuses entirely on tipping...so he's probably the foremost expert on the topic. On to the related point:

This dude mentioned that it is very likely that tipping should be considered illegal due to the similar "fair business practice" statutes, and the reasoning is based not only on his data, but all of the public domain data regarding tipping. It is well understood, for example, that whites generally tip more than other races, that blacks tip the least for various reasons, and the other minorities tip at some non-standard rate between blacks and whites. Further, servers actually receive disproportionate amounts of tipping based on their race. Both whites and blacks will tip whites, on average, larger sums than they will tip their black servers.

Crazy, right?

Here is where it applies: due to SCOTUS precedent that has already ruled that even unintentional consequences (the restaurant can not control the tipping behavior of their patrons) of forced wage models (preposterous dependence on tipping--that was actually an awesome show and is worth the listen) can be held as discriminatory and a violation of the discrimination in employment act (why the businesses are legally bound to sell cakes to gays, for example).

This is kind of fascinating. Tipping is certainly not meant to be discriminatory, nor can it be argued that it is on its face. But simply due to common human behavior that makes it a significantly discriminatory factor (Data significant), businesses that determine wages through tipping percentages can very likely be held in violation, and through no intentional fault of their own.

I think the same argument is being made here re: renting to convicts. Once past offenders are recognized within some protected class, all rights to those classes become extended through various other policies. At some point, that right represents a severe and unintended detriment to the opposite party.

 

[zinfamous]

Eh, if something comes up on a criminal background check, just deny them based upon something else in their application.

"So sorry, but another applicant beat you to submission by only 5 minutes." 🙁

 

[Jaskalas]

Punishment for crimes should not extend one minute beyond the sentence of a judge or jury.

The government is the one providing criminal records, correct?
By providing that they allow discrimination.
This violates equal protection.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

imo in an ideal world dangerous felons would spend their life in prison and all others would be released with no further consequences (or never convicted to begin with wrt drug convictions and similar), but when we're talking about the world's largest prison nation, you can't have a permanent underclass of half-citizens unable to find jobs or a place to live because of a prior history.

I think it's a little ironic when the government does have blanket bans on many social services for those with drug-related felony convictions.

 

[waggy]

I'm behind the LL on this.

though i also heard that some are trying to ban LL from using credit reports too. LOL

 

[PokerGuy]

Typical big government action. They screw something up, then use such idiotic regulation to "fix" the problem by pushing the risk and the burden onto private businesses. Essentially, you're telling the landlords to simply pretend the obvious higher risk of renting to someone with a criminal past doesn't exist, to ignore reality and just deal with the consequences.

A criminal past is probably a very good indicator of future reliability as a renter. The landlord should be able to apply logic and use those filters that are the most accurate predictors. Forcing the landlord to ignore logic is dumb and irresponsible. Of course they'll pretend that's not what they are doing by saying "you can consider the criminal past, just not apply a blanket rule", but in reality those two are the same. You're putting the onus on the landlord to prove that rejecting someone for a particular criminal past is reasonable or not. If you reject an applicant with a criminal background it gives them an avenue to go after you, and the burden will be on you as the landlord to justify the rejection. Lousy idea.

I understand that making it difficult for people with a criminal past to find housing also causes problems, but just blanket pushing those burdens onto the landlord by forcing them to ignore logic isn't a smart approach.

 

[PokerGuy]

I'm behind the LL on this.

though i also heard that some are trying to ban LL from using credit reports too. LOL

That's basically the exact same discussion. Credit reports are definitely not perfect indicators of someone's ability to be responsible financially and make good choices, but they are a pretty decent proxy. Logically, those who extend credit to people will use the best proxy they can find, which means they will use credit reports. The problem is, that can result in discriminatory practices because credit scores are very much skewed for different racial groups. So, the answer is to tell people to ignore logic and ignore reality (ie, not use credit scores to make decisions)? No, the correct answer is to address the things that create the disparity in credit scores. Forcing lenders to make illogical decisions is typical government stupidity.

 

[kage69]

My problems with felons is their likelyhood to re-offend and mess up the landlord-tenant relationship I'm trying to establish. Felons made some dumb choices and typically are risky to do business with.

Sounds like you are in the wrong business then. People who did their time settled their debt with society. Your caution may seem appropriate to you, but like it or not the law is the law. In this case what you consider caution is really judging someone for something they have yet to do. Good luck trying to pass that off as not being judgmental and just about the money.

I can't blame a landlord for worrying about his property and business relationships, but if you think a problem tenant can be expensive just wait until you get dragged into court by a prosecutor who has you by the balls. Sounds like you already have a plan to circumvent some of the risk you see.

 

[PokerGuy]

Sounds like you are in the wrong business then. People who did their time settled their debt with society. Your caution may seem appropriate to you, but like it or not the law is the law. In this case what you consider caution is really judging someone for something they have yet to do. Good luck trying to pass that off as not being judgmental and just about the money.

Complete nonsense. It's not about further punishment beyond the debt settled with society. It's a simple fact that someone's past history of choices (poor or prudent) can be a very good indicator of their future choices. That's what the LL is doing - he'd rather rent to someone with no history of making poor choices than someone with a history of making poor choices. Nothing more, nothing less.

I can't blame a landlord for worrying about his property and business relationships, but if you think a problem tenant can be expensive just wait until you get dragged into court by a prosecutor who has you by the balls.

That's the whole point of the OP's thread. They are now changing the rules such that a significant burden is shifted onto him, which is both dumb and unfair.

Sounds like you already have a plan to circumvent some of the risk you see.

Of course he has a plan, everyone will do the same thing. They will find other reasons to reject the applicant instead of just a blanket rule, but the result will be the same. Just more money for the lawyers.

 

[Fern]

..but like it or not the law is the law.

There's a big part of the problem: A bureaucrat with the powers of a dictator and no accountability can simply make it so. He can simply and easily force his ideology upon us at our cost.

Laws should be required to be passed by Congress. We can at least vote them out.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

There's a big part of the problem: A bureaucrat with the powers of a dictator and no accountability can simply make it so. He can simply and easily force his ideology upon us at our cost.

Laws should be required to be passed by Congress. We can at least vote them out.

Fern

Those bureaucrats are acting under the authority of laws passed by Congress. Laws that Congress expressly made to delegate that authority because a single legislative body has neither the time nor the expertise to do those things.

The bureaucracy IS congress. Congress made them and told them to carry out their wishes.

 

[NetWareHead]

If you (NetWareHead) feel that strongly about this then maybe you should be looking for a different line of work/investment/whatever this is to you.

The rest of us avoid doing what you do specifically because we don't want to deal with the hassles, what makes you special that you get the upside with none of the down?

Viper GTS

Sounds like you are in the wrong business then. People who did their time settled their debt with society. Your caution may seem appropriate to you, but like it or not the law is the law. In this case what you consider caution is really judging someone for something they have yet to do. Good luck trying to pass that off as not being judgmental and just about the money.

I can't blame a landlord for worrying about his property and business relationships, but if you think a problem tenant can be expensive just wait until you get dragged into court by a prosecutor who has you by the balls. Sounds like you already have a plan to circumvent some of the risk you see.

I do this already at my full time job. Effectively discriminate potential hires for having a criminal record. With the full backing of a corporate HR Dept, I have denied potential hires on this basis. Don't people need jobs as much as housing? Felons included?

Why can employers and other businesses discriminate against felons and my landlord business cannot?

 

[NetWareHead]

Of course he has a plan, everyone will do the same thing. They will find other reasons to reject the applicant instead of just a blanket rule, but the result will be the same. Just more money for the lawyers.

Absolutely this. If I can't discriminate based on felony status, and one turns up in a background check, we still have a slew of other reasons that are legal to turn away a potential. Hell, I've even turned away a guy who was a nut job and told him I didn't think our personalities were a good match. He looked at me and said "it's not like we are getting married". I just didn't trust the guy and something about him said he would be trouble.

If I rent to a felon in the spirit of this new law, it's me who shoulders the risk and not the govt. If some drunkard with 5 DWIs gets arrested again, I have to spend months in landlord court evicting him, all the while not getting paid. Am I going to sleep well at night if I rent to an arsonist? What if my quality tenants do a child molester search and find they have one living on the floor above them? They are going to be furious at me and won't renew. And I wouldn't blame them...

And if someone wants to feel offended and takes issue with my denying them, they have ambulance chasing lawyers slithering to their doorstep willing to work pro-bono. Me: I have to pay up front for my legal representation.

 

[Hugo Drax]

If business are not forced to hire felons. They can even ask about this on the job application, why should someone who wants to rent a place be forced to rent to a felon?


Good enough for fortune 500, good enough for the guy who has a rental property.

 

[JMapleton]

I'll just leave this right here.....

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/once-a-criminal-always-a-criminal/

Felons are very likely to reoffend. I would prefer to rent at a place that didn't have bank robbers, molesters, and thugs living there, no matter what race they are. Race has NOTHING to do with it.

 

[Zorkorist]

Did anyone see the 60 Minutes last night?

Apparently in Germany they treat prisoners like people, and help them get better, with the hope that they can reintroduce them into society with a better chance to succeed.

-John

 

[mysticjbyrd]

The disparate impact thing is a bunch of BS but something that has to be dealt with regardless (I work in mortgages and we have to deal with this on a continuous basis). I'm less critical on outlawing the ban of offenders because at the end of the day these people need housing (and jobs) so we either rehab them back into society or we might as well throw away the keys when we locked people up if there is no chance for them in the outside world when they get out.

I do understand your frustration as a landlord though, and I do think that you should have the final say so on vetting tenants for your property without any government intervention (it's your property not theirs after all).

That just opens the door to discrimination. There is no difference from that, and saying blacks cannot eat at my establishment, because it's my establishment.

 

[PokerGuy]

That just opens the door to discrimination. There is no difference from that, and saying blacks cannot eat at my establishment, because it's my establishment.

There is a very significant difference between discriminating based on a factor outside the control of someone (their race, gender, nationality etc) and discriminating based on their prior actions and/or choices. The former is prejudicial and unfair, while the latter is completely logical and fair. People can and do change, but prior choices and actions are as good an indicator of future behavior as you're going to get.

Would you leave your child in the care of someone who was previously convicted of child neglect or child molestation after they finished "paying their debt to society"? Of course you wouldn't. Why should landlords ignore that same sound logic when it comes to renting their property?

 

[Ackmed]

We make laws to protect the rights of felons because of bigots like you.

So you're ok with someone convicted or armed robbery or aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, legally obtaining a gun right? Or voting right? Since "we" make laws to protect felons (your words). When in fact, they lose rights others have by being a felon.

 

[interchange]

That just opens the door to discrimination. There is no difference from that, and saying blacks cannot eat at my establishment, because it's my establishment.

Oh? I don't hear anyone in this thread arguing that these convicted felons were innocent. Nor do I hear anyone on this thread arguing that prior felony is not highly predictive of future felony. There is an enormous difference in protecting yourself based on well established evidence and in racism.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

If we can't judge a tenant by their history, what the fuck can we judge them based on?

I'm just saying, if your choices are someone with a 700+ credit score, no criminal history - and another prospective tenant with a shit credit score from debt issues and a criminal record, what is any LOGICAL person going to pick? It's fucking OBSCENE to suggest that we can't judge someone by their criminal history. I honestly feel for any landlords - because I've heard some of the horror stories. It's not cheap to be a landlord, evicting someone alone costs them thousands.

If anything should be done to help out previous criminals, it should be at the legal level. Do things like expunge criminal records for good behavior..... or not to publicly show anything that is 5+ years old.