Feds Warn Landlords About Banning Ex-Offenders

[s0me0nesmind1]

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.

Insurances can judge you based on your previous wrecks. But those were accidents, I shouldn't be judged on that!

Insurances can judge you based on your age, but that isn't a choice! Just because others in my age group have a higher probability of getting in a wreck doesn't mean I should pay!

Banks, Insurances, and many other places can judge you based on your credit score. But those debt issues were accidents! I'm not responsible for paying off the debt that I agreed to! I tried to pay them but they wouldn't let me! I Shouldn't be judged on that!



To suggest that all of the above are acceptable, but not judging someone based on their criminal record is.... fucking hilariously retarded. Seriously. It baffles my mind some of you can hit that high on the stupidity bar.

 

[fskimospy]

Insurances can judge you based on your previous wrecks. But those were accidents, I shouldn't be judged on that!

Insurances can judge you based on your age, but that isn't a choice! Just because others in my age group have a higher probability of getting in a wreck doesn't mean I should pay!

Banks, Insurances, and many other places can judge you based on your credit score. But those debt issues were accidents! I'm not responsible for paying off the debt that I agreed to! I tried to pay them but they wouldn't let me! I Shouldn't be judged on that!



To suggest that all of the above are acceptable, but not judging someone based on their criminal record is.... fucking hilariously retarded. Seriously. It baffles my mind some of you can hit that high on the stupidity bar.

Housing is a universal human requirement. Car insurance isn't. Why on earth should we treat them the same? That would be awfully stupid, no?

I'm still waiting for a single solitary person to offer a good alternative. Can you do it?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Housing is a universal human requirement. Car insurance isn't. Why on earth should we treat them the same? That would be awfully stupid, no?

I'm still waiting for a single solitary person to offer a good alternative. Can you do it?

Already mentioned what the alternative (and REAL solution) should be: Reforming laws to help people get back on their feet:

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.

Outside of that, it is ridiculous to suggest anything else. What they are currently saying is essentially "Alright guys, a bullet is coming our way, who wants to step in front of it for us?" No Landlord would ever take up a criminal.

If you are renting a property for $800, the tenant pays the first month and stops paying from there - you would probably be out $5,000+ to get the eviction, which would take months to go through the court system - all the while you're getting screwed on someone living and not paying for your property that you can't kick out.

 

[fskimospy]

Already mentioned what the alternative (and REAL solution) should be: Reforming laws to help people get back on their feet:

Outside of that, it is ridiculous to suggest anything else. What they are currently saying is essentially "Alright guys, a bullet is coming our way, who wants to step in front of it for us?" No Landlord would ever take up a criminal.

If you are renting a property for $800, the tenant pays the first month and stops paying from there - you would probably be out $5,000+ to get the eviction, which would take months to go through the court system - all the while you're getting screwed on someone living and not paying for your property that you can't kick out.

I'm willing to bet that recidivism is overwhelmingly concentrated in the first few years so your solution is no solution at all.

If your position is simply that society should have to suffer increased crime so that landlords retain the right to exclude tenants then just say so, because that's the result of your idea.

 

[PokerGuy]

I'm still waiting for a single solitary person to offer a good alternative. Can you do it?

A good alternative to what? This won't change or solve anything, other than keep the lawyers busy and screw with some landlords. Every landlord will find other reasons to reject tenants with a criminal past. You are seeking a "good alternative" to something that accomplishes nothing? There are plenty of ways to accomplish nothing.

 

[fskimospy]

A good alternative to what? This won't change or solve anything, other than keep the lawyers busy and screw with some landlords. Every landlord will find other reasons to reject tenants with a criminal past. You are seeking a "good alternative" to something that accomplishes nothing? There are plenty of ways to accomplish nothing.

So this will simultaneously do nothing and screw landlords. That is an illogical statement.

 

[NetWareHead]

I'm still waiting for a single solitary person to offer a good alternative. Can you do it?

What we have here is not a good alternative either. The offered solution is unjust and makes no business or logical sense. There is no way this can be called a solution.

How about rescind this interpretation of housing discrimination with respect to felons? The solution being proposed screws landlords and panders to felons who got to this place in life by their own accord. While we landlords are hard working people who have to bend over for these people! Im waiting for someone to send some benevolence my way instead, but the people least deserving are coddled at my expense.

 

[fskimospy]

What we have here is not a good alternative either. The offered solution is unjust and makes no business or logical sense. There is no way this can be called a solution.

How about rescind this interpretation of housing discrimination with respect to felons? The solution being proposed screws landlords and panders to felons who got to this place in life by their own accord. While we landlords are hard working people who have to bend over for these people! Im waiting for someone to send some benevolence my way instead, but the people least deserving are coddled at my expense.

Repealing this isn't a solution, it's the opposite of a solution. It's also not unjust any more than any other regulation is. You are forced to rent to Jews and atheists despite the fact that religion can be freely chosen. Is the civil rights act pandering to Jews and atheists?

Lack of available housing increases crime. This is a bad thing. Find me a solution to make housing available for ex cons and we can talk. All you're saying now is that society should accept higher crime so that your business can perform better. Surely you can understand why society says 'no thanks'?

 

[PokerGuy]

So this will simultaneously do nothing and screw landlords. That is an illogical statement.

I did not say it would do nothing. I said it would not accomplish or solve anything. It will result in more useless court cases, more legal costs and overhead waste, but it won't accomplish anything positive or solve any problems. Instead of a simple "blanket" rejection, the landlord will come up with some other reason for the rejection.

It simply doesn't make sense to force landlords to ignore logic and reality, to pretend something doesn't exist. Either deal with the actual problem, or deal with the consequences as a society, but simply trying to push the problem onto one particular group (landlords) and pretending it will solve something isn't useful.

 

[K1052]

Im waiting for someone to send some benevolence my way instead, but the people least deserving are coddled at my expense.

As a former landlord and current business owner/employer I find this attitude offensive. Don't like the legal requirements of operating your business? Then don't operate a business, nobody is making you. Stop whining.

 

[PokerGuy]

Repealing this isn't a solution, it's the opposite of a solution.

This chosen path isn't a solution either. Why is one non-solution better than another non-solution?

Lack of available housing increases crime. This is a bad thing. Find me a solution to make housing available for ex cons and we can talk.

This isn't a solution either, yet they chose to go with it anyway. The problem is lack of housing for people with felonies on their record. Any actual solution is going to involve how people get felonies on their record, how long they stay on there, who can see them, whether they can get "cleaned" with a certain amount of time and good behavior and a host of other things, but forcing landlords to pretend something doesn't exist solves nothing.

 

[PokerGuy]

Don't like the legal requirements of operating your business? Then don't operate a business, nobody is making you. Stop whining.

That's a truly stupid way to look at it. He was operating his business just fine, the legal requirements are being changed now --- in a completely arbitrary and illogical way. Of course he has the right to complain about it. He will ultimately have to decide if he wants to continue in that particular business, but this attitude of "just take it and shut up, serf" is exactly what is wrong with government types.

 

[fskimospy]

I did not say it would do nothing. I said it would not accomplish or solve anything. It will result in more useless court cases, more legal costs and overhead waste, but it won't accomplish anything positive or solve any problems. Instead of a simple "blanket" rejection, the landlord will come up with some other reason for the rejection.

It simply doesn't make sense to force landlords to ignore logic and reality, to pretend something doesn't exist. Either deal with the actual problem, or deal with the consequences as a society, but simply trying to push the problem onto one particular group (landlords) and pretending it will solve something isn't useful.

You actually explicitly said it would do nothing, but whatever.

So to be clear you think this will provide a cause of action for lawsuits but will do nothing to change landlord behavior. What is the basis for this? By your logic we should repeal anti discrimination laws based on race as well, as the same principle would hold where landlords just come up with other reasons and it only creates lawsuits. Do you support repealing those laws? If not, can you explain why those are effective but this would not be?

 

[NetWareHead]

Repealing this isn't a solution, it's the opposite of a solution. It's also not unjust any more than any other regulation is. You are forced to rent to Jews and atheists despite the fact that religion can be freely chosen. Is the civil rights act pandering to Jews and atheists?

Lack of available housing increases crime. This is a bad thing. Find me a solution to make housing available for ex cons and we can talk. All you're saying now is that society should accept higher crime so that your business can perform better. Surely you can understand why society says 'no thanks'?

Thats a stretch to say the least to compare religious afiliation to someone's felony status. Again, personal choice to be a felon. One's religious affiliation harms nobody else.

I cant sit here and realisticaly tell you that renting to a Jew puts my business at risk. But I can say this when talking about a felon. And you can see why I say "no thanks".

Why are other businesses allowed to discriminate with respect to felony status? Dont felons need a job as much as they need housing?

 

[K1052]

That's a truly stupid way to look at it. He was operating his business just fine, the legal requirements are being changed now --- in a completely arbitrary and illogical way. Of course he has the right to complain about it. He will ultimately have to decide if he wants to continue in that particular business, but this attitude of "just take it and shut up, serf" is exactly what is wrong with government types.

Uh, no. Anybody who operates a business that has contact with the public at large knows full well that the government has a lot of say in how you interact with said public. Prohibiting blanket bans of this sort falls firmly within their purview.

It is neither arbitrary or illogical.

 

[fskimospy]

Thats a stretch to say the least to compare religious afiliation to someone's felony status. Again, personal choice to be a felon. One's religious affiliation harms nobody else.

I cant sit here and realisticaly tell you that renting to a Jew puts my business at risk. But I can say this when talking about a felon. And you can see why I say "no thanks".

Why are other businesses allowed to discriminate with respect to felony status? Dont felons need a job as much as they need housing?

There are prohibitions on that as well. In NYC for example it is illegal to ask about criminal background on job applications.

I understand that to you religion might not matter but it definitely does to other people. New York has a big problem in some areas where the ultra orthodox attempt to rent only to other ultra orthodox. This shouldn't be legal, even though people choose their religion, right?

 

[NetWareHead]

There are prohibitions on that as well. In NYC for example it is illegal to ask about criminal background on job applications.

I understand that to you religion might not matter but it definitely does to other people. New York has a big problem in some areas where the ultra orthodox attempt to rent only to other ultra orthodox. This shouldn't be legal, even though people choose their religion, right?

Even if you dont ask about it, it will still show up in a background check. And I am not aware of any legislation prohibiting felony discrimination in the hiring process. Like i said earlier, I have had the full backing of a corporate HR dept to dismiss a job applicant based on criminal history.

 

[PokerGuy]

You actually explicitly said it would do nothing, but whatever.

I did? In what post did I say that? Unless my memory is completely messing up, I believe I said it will "accomplish nothing", not that it would do nothing.

So to be clear you think this will provide a cause of action for lawsuits but will do nothing to change landlord behavior. What is the basis for this? By your logic we should repeal anti discrimination laws based on race as well, as the same principle would hold where landlords just come up with other reasons and it only creates lawsuits. Do you support repealing those laws? If not, can you explain why those are effective but this would not be?

Anti-discrimination laws generally prevent discrimination based on things people can't control. They are based on the notion that such discrimination is patently unfair to people, regardless of the reasoning behind it. That's not what we're talking about here, which is a crucial distinction. In this case, the landlord is trying to make a determination as to whether someone is going to be a good renter or not. Prior actions and decisions are a good tool in making that evaluation, and judging someone based on their actions and (poor) choices is not patently unfair at all. So it makes complete sense to use criminal (felony) convictions part of the screening.

I don't believe trying to prevent people from making rational decisions based on logic is a good way to accomplish anything useful.

 

[PokerGuy]

Uh, no. Anybody who operates a business that has contact with the public at large knows full well that the government has a lot of say in how you interact with said public. Prohibiting blanket bans of this sort falls firmly within their purview.

Nobody said they *could* not enact such rules, it is within their legal purview. That doesn't make it a good idea, nor does it make sense. Just because someone comes up with some rule or idea does not mean everyone just has to shut up and agree with it. OP made his point as to why this is a terrible idea. You're telling him he should just shut up and "stop whining", which is typical government approach.

It is neither arbitrary or illogical.

It is completely arbitrary and illogical, for all the reasons already specified.

 

[fskimospy]

I did? In what post did I say that? Unless my memory is completely messing up, I believe I said it will "accomplish nothing", not that it would do nothing.



Anti-discrimination laws generally prevent discrimination based on things people can't control. They are based on the notion that such discrimination is patently unfair to people, regardless of the reasoning behind it. That's not what we're talking about here, which is a crucial distinction. In this case, the landlord is trying to make a determination as to whether someone is going to be a good renter or not. Prior actions and decisions are a good tool in making that evaluation, and judging someone based on their actions and (poor) choices is not patently unfair at all. So it makes complete sense to use criminal (felony) convictions part of the screening.

I don't believe trying to prevent people from making rational decisions based on logic is a good way to accomplish anything useful.

You didn't answer my question. You said landlords would get around it anyway so it would accomplish nothing. By that logic laws against racial discrimination also accomplish nothing. There is no reason to keep pointless laws on the books, right? Therefore we should repeal antidiscrimination laws. Who cares about feel good laws that do nothing?

It seems to me like you either have to point out why landlords get around this but not racial laws or you should want to get rid of those as well.

 

[fskimospy]

Even if you dont ask about it, it will still show up in a background check. And I am not aware of any legislation prohibiting felony discrimination in the hiring process. Like i said earlier, I have had the full backing of a corporate HR dept to dismiss a job applicant based on criminal history.

Your HR better be careful then as they might get themselves in a lot of trouble.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/new-york-law-employer-use-arrest-conviction-records.html

The restrictions in hiring are broadly similar to the housing thing we are talking about.

 

[K1052]

Nobody said they *could* not enact such rules, it is within their legal purview. That doesn't make it a good idea, nor does it make sense. Just because someone comes up with some rule or idea does not mean everyone just has to shut up and agree with it. OP made his point as to why this is a terrible idea. You're telling him he should just shut up and "stop whining", which is typical government approach.



It is completely arbitrary and illogical, for all the reasons already specified.

The concept that businesses cannot discriminate against customers in a broad fashion is so basic a concept that even you should be able to grasp it. That the government will, over time, add specificity to address a particular problem like this should shock absolutely nobody. You have been thus far unable to come up with an alternative policy or even a good rationale why such bans should be allowed in the first place given the literal life and death importance of housing.

No you're just calling it that. The reasons have been well explained in this thread already.

 

[Viper GTS]

Let's be clear here, no laws have been changed. The Fair Housing Act has been around almost 50 years, which is very likely before NetWareHead's birth, much less his becoming a landlord. This is just the government clarifying things and giving landlords the opportunity to stay out of trouble.

While you may feel superior for having stayed out of trouble, it's in everyone's best interest to give prior offenders every opportunity to align with society's expectations. That public interest far outweighs any pity I feel for landlords who don't want to play by the rules.

Viper GTS

 

[Captain Picard]

Looks like issues regarding convicts really strike a chord with eskimo.

Your voting rights haven't been disenfranchised, have they?

 

[PokerGuy]

The concept that businesses cannot discriminate against customers in a broad fashion is so basic a concept that even you should be able to grasp it.

Baloney. They can, and do, discriminate in a multitude of ways, and it's perfectly legal. For example, you can require that patrons wear a certain attire, and "discriminate" against anyone not wearing that attire. It's different when you discriminate against someone based on something they don't control. That's really the root of what we're talking about. People most certainly do have control over their actions and whether they commit felonies or not.

That the government will, over time, add specificity to address a particular problem like this should shock absolutely nobody.

It does not shock anyone, but that doesn't mean it makes sense.

You have been thus far unable to come up with an alternative policy or even a good rationale why such bans should be allowed in the first place given the literal life and death importance of housing.

Exactly the same as with eskimo: an alternative to what? I don't think this will help solve anything or accomplish anything. What alternative policy do you want to something that won't accomplish anything?

The rationale for why such bans should be allowed is very simple. They are rational and logical decisions that make complete sense. You're basically saying "stop doing what makes sense and do something that doesn't make sense instead".