Obama Admin Tells Landlords They Can’t Refuse To House Criminals

this cant even apply to all landlords, those that rent propertys but dont live in them have to go by the fair housing act and various other regulations. BUT if you cohabit with the tenants ie they live in the same house and share same common areas you can discriminate against anything thanks to that old supreme court ruling from the 1970ish time.

its why postings requesting female roommates only is completely legal

legal-planet.org...

“Female Roommate Wanted” It’s a fairly standard advertisement. But for years, many scholars and lawyers have thought it constitutes illegal sex discrimination under the Fair Housing Act. In Fair Housing Council v. roommate.com, a recent opinion by Alex Kozinski and joined by Stephen Reinhardt (so there’s your first surprise), the 9th Circuit has said that such ads are permissible. I realize that this isn’t strictly an environmental question, but the case is interesting for the creative moves it makes on statutory interpretation, and in any event, I’m assuming that lots of Legal Planet readers either teach Property or deal with property law in their practices, so it might of interest to our readers. The problem actually serves as a hypothetical in the Dukeminier casebook: is it a violation to advertise for a “female roommate”? Students frequently rebel against the standard answer: yes. So did the 9th Circuit, and here is its chain of reasoning: 1) The FHA forbids discrimination “with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling”; so what is a “dwelling”? 2) The opinion says that the FHA “stops at the apartment door”, essentially meaning that a “dwelling” means any individual’s unit, be it one room of an apartment, or even one chunk of a bunk bed. Thus, if you say you only want a female roommate, that’s not discriminating with respect to a “dwelling” because she might be in another room or another part of the bunk. 3) Is this forced? Yes, the Court concedes. But: 4) There is no way that Congress could have intended anything else. The Court noted that the language was adopted in 1968: “Telling women they may not lawfully exclude men from the list of acceptable roommates would be controversial today; it would have been scandalous in the 1960s.”

so if your in cohabitation with your tennants (like i do and boy can it be hell) this wont effect you at all

another link blog.splitwise.com...

and if he tries to say its illegal to discriminate against potential non shared living area tenants will this apply to jobs? it would be pretty hard to keep discriminating against potential renters while still doing it in cases of employment.

few devils advocate positions: if i cant discriminate against who i rent to along criminal records why can any one else? would this undermine the sex offender registry (the kind of criminals no one cares if people discriminate against) being a pedophile is a criminal reccord can they not be told no if children live in the complex?

another one (far more unlikely) if this is the case with renters would the secret service not be able to discriminate against hiring john hinkley jr (he shot a president)? would police/fbi/dhs be able to say no we wont hire a criminal but yeah you would be forced to bring one into your home or its discrimination?

if one is discrimination and the other is not it seems kind of an odd stance to take. some would argue the prohibition of voting by felons is discriminatory as people get to vote on new criminal offense laws ordinances etc ,but they dont let felons who often times the laws effect vote in their own defense. from a strictly legal standpoint it would create far more problems then it claims to solve

Wasn't there a story recently about a landlord in Denver that wouldn't rent to Trump supporters?

I wonder how many here were okay with that, but not with this.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: DBCowboy

Isn't that a State issue? Besides, people would still complain even if he was.

No, not a state issue.

People would complain regardless.

If we want to extend equal rights to prior felons, then why not all rights?

No, I think it is a State issue. Because different States have vastly different laws about that. Some States don't allow convicted felons to vote, while others do. I'm not sure with gun ownership, though, so maybe that one's federal.

But yeah, I feel that all rights should be reinstated once a person's served their debt to society. Then again, I also don't believe in 2nd class citizenship, regardless of what it's called.

a reply to: xuenchen

The imbalance exists because certain demographic population segments are severely lacking in the " act right" department.

It is not a racial issue, because most races get along just fine in our country.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here it is!


ha!

My first thoughts were....

Then they'll be fines and lawsuits.
Multi property owners will cave in and sell.
More confirmation that our government wants us wealthy or poor. There will be no in between.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

What states allow convicted felons to vote?

edit;

I stand corrected. There are two states that allow voting.

a reply to: xuenchen

The claim is that it might be "discriminatory" to weed out criminals from rental situations.

Did you actually read the guideline document or hell, the Daily Caller "News Foundation" (lol) article? From your source:

HUD says that landlords may be allowed to bar those with criminal records from living in a facility, but they will have to prove that such a policy is necessary for protecting the safety of other tenants, and designed to avoid illegal discrimination. The new guidance recommends that landlords consider factors such as the severity of the criminal history and how long ago it occurred.

The new guideline includes one major exception that will benefit landlords: It is never illegal, HUD says, for landlords to block renting to those convicted of manufacturing or distributing illegal drugs.

The above is actually closer to the truth than your own statements but still not entirely correct. The landlord only has to prove that the policy serves a "substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest" which can include protecting the safety of other tenants but would also include protecting other tenants' property and of course that of the landlord. For example, there is no legal justification for refusing to rent to a person for a 10 year-old shoplifting conviction or a 15 year-old possession conviction like Vector99's as it doesn't serve a "substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest."

It doesn't compel anyone to rent to rapists, child molesters, gang bangers, meth cookers, arsonists, etc — you know, legitimate concerns. The best bet is to not have a blanket policy and evaluate applicants on a case by case basis.

The greatest risk of a incurring a fine would be if it could be demonstrated that the landlord was using the policy as a false pretense to discriminate. This would be something like renting to white applicants convicted of *whatever* crime but refusing to rent to minority applicants, citing a policy against renting to persons convicted of *whatever* crime (the same *whatever*).

a reply to: DBCowboy

It's really confusing that you Americans are supposedly one nation but have so many different laws dependant on State like you're all living in different countries.

a reply to: xuenchen

The problem is that once people serve their sentences they can't clean their life up because society discriminates against people who just want jobs and places to live and they c ant get that.



The recidivism rate is above 80% because of this reason.

All records need to be sealed unless otherwise specified by the judge.

a reply to: Discotech

Agreed. Too many laws, too many lawyers.

a reply to: DBCowboy



No worries, man. Honestly, this crap confuses me sometimes.

Edit to add: And apparently 11 States and Washington DC allow felons to vote once they're released from jail. And 5 more allow felons to vote if they're on probation, but not parole. Then another 20 allow convicted felons to vote after they've completed their entire term. It's a weird mix, for sure.

www.ehow.com...

Obama needs to make change on the Federal level then and also go after public housing. I have a friend who several years ago was in public housing. No one in the family could commit a crime or they would lose their section 8. So I just looked this up:

Federally Subsidized Housing(NYCHA & Section 8)

Federally subsidized housing includes all public housing developments (such as NYCHA in New York City and RHA in Rochester) and Section 8. Rules in subsidized housing can be very strict, and even minor arrests or criminal convictions can affect your right to stay in public housing. This section includes information about “Admissions”–or the rules guiding when your criminal conviction might prevent you from living in public housing, even if your family lives there–and about “Termination of Tenancy”–or eviction based on criminal justice involvement. Most of the information here is specific to the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) and to Section 8 administered by NYCHA. To find out about the laws specific to your city or county use LawHelp/NY (www.lawhelp.org/ny) to find a housing legal services provider in your area.

Admissions: Getting into housing with a criminal record

Public housing agencies and Section 8 providers can and do obtain criminal records of applicants and tenants. Much of the information in this section is based on How to Get Section 8 or Public Housing Even With a Criminal Record, a publication of the Legal Action Center.

1. How can my past criminal involvement affect my chances at getting public housing or Section 8?
•When you apply, the Public Housing Authority runs a criminal background check of: •You;
•Everyone you currently live with;
•Everyone 16 or older who might live with you;
•Any biological parent of any children who will be living in the household, even parents who do not plan to live with you and are not part of the public housing application.

•The rules governing who may be denied are very broad. The Housing Authority tries to exclude people it believes will “risk the health and safety of other tenants.” On the other hand, the Housing Authority may choose to overlook your criminal convictions and accept your application, especially if they see evidence that you have changed since the time of your conviction.
•The Housing Authority will look for evidence (such as an official rap sheet) that no member of your household has committed any new criminal activity in recent years. Federal Law (42 USC § 13661(c)) gives Public Housing Authorities the power to deny people based on criminal activity.

- See more at: www.bronxdefenders.org...

The above is relatively effective in many states.

originally posted by: Discotech
a reply to: DBCowboy

It's really confusing that you Americans are supposedly one nation but have so many different laws dependant on State like you're all living in different countries.

Just think of each of our 50 States as being semi-independent provinces. Each has its own legislative chamber (State Congress), judicial system, and governor-led executive branch (the governor is the elected head of the State's executive branch). Our federal government is the glue that keeps us together, though some on the right absolutely hate this federalism. Usually when you hear them talk about "big government", they're talking about the federal government.

a reply to: xuenchen

This is why when I rehab a home I flip it and don't try to rent it out for income. There are too many headaches associated with rental properties and all the laws are skewed to protect renters and not the person that actually owns the property. This is especially true in California. The Government constantly meddles in business to the extent that I would not hire additional people, not rent my properties and kept me from doing business in certain areas simply to avoid the overbearing bureaucracy.

If Government actually cared about jobs and the economy they would stop making it impossible or at the very least inconvenient to do business. I retired early because it is easier than keeping my businesses open.

Heres something mos tpeople dont ever try. You dont have to disclose you were a felon to get a job. Same applies to prior job history. you arent legally required to say ig you dont want to and legally they cannot check behind you because then they can b e sued for discrimination.At least in SC.(except jobs involving money/finance)

So is HUD going to provide liability insurance for a landlord who does ignore a criminal record and that person then winds up committing a crime that results in the landlord being sued for negligence? Didn't think so...

All the people saying that if someone served time, they should get to start over with a new slate are either not being honest or outright naive.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

But the apartment complex BELONGS to someone. It is their property, their home, their building, whatever you wish to call it, it is theirs. They paid for it. They have the risk of renting it to someone with a record - and so they should be able to choose who resides there, period. People make choices in life as I said, and there are consequences for that, including people not welcoming you into their space. I suggest the person find a cheap motel until they can save up to buy their own place if no one in the world will let them rent an apartment. I knew someone who had to do that because they thought it was a good idea to try robbing a gas station. They lost their home and when they got out of jail had to live in a motel. I wouldn't want them as my tenant. They may try stealing from me or someone else in the complex. Having a record shows something regarding your character.

That's a part of why some apartments are so cheap while others are pricier. They have lower standards for the people who reside there.

People with criminal records tend to attract other people with criminal records. This is why most people don't want to live around criminals (either current or former).

Sometimes we make choices in life. Sometimes those choices can have devastating consequences. When people choose a life of crime, you have to live with the result even if at some point, you decide that life isn't for you. You cannot expect others to just forget about what you may have done.

I don't think any landlord is going to not rent to some convicted of a minor crime. Your weed conviction from 20 years ago is not going to stop you from getting an apartment. However, I can see why a landlord wouldn't rent to someone convicted of strong arm robbery or other serious crimes.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: burntheships

Manufacturing makes sense. Many of those labs can literally explode with even a minor mistake (meth labs are a perfect example).

Yes, distribution ( dealer ) makes sense also. Imagine the traffic that brings
to a neighborhood, and the criminal activity it brings with it.

Not good.