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

The Obama Administration through its Department of Housing and Urban Development is trying to tell private landlords to start allowing criminals (or people with criminal records) to rent regardless of criminal histories.

These comments are coming in part from HUD Secretary Julian Castro.

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

The basis is from The Fair Housing Act that generally is silent on criminals.

Looks like they are doing all they can to diminish all standards of good Citizen conduct and behavior.

I wonder what the purpose is here?

The article has details....
Obama Admin Tells Landlords They Can’t Refuse To House Criminals

The Obama administration released a warning Monday telling the nation’s landlords that it may be discriminatory for them to refuse to rent to those with criminal records.

The Fair Housing Act doesn’t include criminals as a protected class, but the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) says refusing to rent based on a criminal record is a form of racial discrimination, due to racial imbalances in the U.S. justice system.

? Is there a "Blue Ribbon" Committee somewhere ?

a reply to: xuenchen

What's the problem ? It is discrimination against people with records, they may be reformed and be good honest people now, should we let their past mistakes punish them for their whole life ?

Do you think preventing them from getting jobs based on their record and getting a home based on their record is going to help them from committing more crime ? If anything it's going to push them towards crime

Or failing that we should keep criminals permanently in prison for their entire life so save all this hassle

a reply to: xuenchen

I read that link and it doesn't say who you can discriminate against. In oz you can't discriminate against anyone. Down under you choose who you want out of many applicants, Maybe the president needs some business advice, Wonder who would be good at that ? Lol.

a reply to: xuenchen

Pfft.. my house, my rules. I wouldn't let Obama rent a place I owned either. Discrimination? Well, yeah - I don't like him based on his political ideology and the things that he has done and said, so I don't trust or want him under my roof. It is my property, shouldn't I hold that right? No one has the right to live in a building I own but me. I get to choose who those people are. At least, that is how I feel it should be.

Now this discussion seems to be about criminals, not race. No one should feel pressured to harbor a criminal either. But if we want to talk race.. I don't agree with hating a person for the color of their skin, it is an awful thing to be racist, but I will certainly stand up for a persons right to choose who is welcome in their home. Though why would you want to rent from a racist, anyway? Why fight for the ability to give your hard earned money to a bigot? That makes no sense. I wouldn't feel safe living in such a place and I certainly wouldn't want to fund them. Either way, I find that this is stupid on so many levels.

I may be the odd (wo)man out but I feel like this can help far more people than what you'd think. My sister is actually a victim of a set-up so now she has a Class C Felony on her record until the end of probation. Now she can't find a decent house or neighborhood to move into because they all see the word 'felony' and blacklist her. So for people who share a similar position as her, I think it's beneficial.

(Domestic dispute: her husband woke her up after calling the cops to get her out of the house, blocked her truck in so she couldn't escape, she stormed off down the road, ended up at the neighbor's, cops came and neighbor handed them a pair of pants that my sister supposedly forgotten in their bathroom, sent my sister to jail for the standard 24 hours.

24 hours was up but SURPRISE, they said they found white powder that tested positive for meth. Apparently a line's worth but nobody carries it around in that state nor in a folded business card where it could easily fall out. So then she was stuck in there until her court hearing which was in two weeks.

Key things of note: Pants were never in her immediate possession when the cops were handed them. She wouldn't have had a single thing on her anyway given that the cops were already on their way. Plus, the neighbor was later found out to be a meth cooker/dealer. So put those pieces together.)

originally posted by: Robbo2006
a reply to: xuenchen

I read that link and it doesn't say who you can discriminate against. In oz you can't discriminate against anyone. Down under you choose who you want out of many applicants, Maybe the president needs some business advice, Wonder who would be good at that ? Lol.

How would that work, eh?

Ie, you are renting your family home to relocate and they insist you have to take the first viewer?

No one would ever do that, not even in Ozzie land.

You would choose the best suitable tenant.

originally posted by: xuenchen
The claim is that it might be "discriminatory" to weed out criminals from rental situations.

I had to respond to this interesting choice of words. I have a 15 year old felony on my record for possession of marijuana in Arizona, a state that doesn't offer record expungement.

To deny me a rental unit because of that is well, some NLBS.

The left has created an environment where many believe all discrimination is bad. Discrimination, some at least, is actually a positive and a normal human instinct.

I wouldn't want to live next door to a child molester.

I wouldn't want to live next door to a gang banger.

I wouldn't want to live next door to a heroin addict.

If I had two equal candidates applying for a job and one was 275 lbs, massively overweight and the other was a fit 175 lbs, obviously active and healthy, I'm hiring the latter as it's a reflection on self worth and an overall healthy lifestyle.

If I was a cop in a tough neighborhood where things can get rough, I'd prefer a strong man as my partner over a woman.

If I get a massage, I go with a woman, not a man as I don't want any male funny business.

I will discriminate against all the examples above at certain times and in certain contexts.

So do most aside from self righteous hypocrites.

And I'd wager Obama, like most elites, live in nice posh, mostly white affluent neighborhoods devoid of any serious crime while telling everyone else not to discriminate against the same types he wouldn't dare live next to, or let his daughters bring over for Thanksgiving dinner.

When you're convicted of a crime, you have to "make it up" to society. That may be through fines, community service, imprisonment, or other measures. But once you've paid your debt to society, you should be treated like a normal citizen. So in short, I agree with this policy.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

So you don't believe a person should be able to choose who lives in their home?

And yes you must do those things, but none of them change your actions that led to you being convicted of a crime. The crime still happened, and people must use their best judgement on whether they want to risk that you'll do it again or not. Some people may be willing to take that risk. Others don't - and that is okay. Sure, you may have entirely changed, but how can a person know that? They can't - so they go by what they know about you as a person. Choices in life have consequences, unfortunately.

a reply to: JustAnObservation

"Landlords" also applies to "owners and management of apartment complexes". Obviously an individual can choose who lives in their home lol.

But no, I don't think apartments and the such should be able to discriminate based on criminal history if the person has finished paying their debt to society. If every apartment complex or renter refuses to allow tenants with criminal records, where does that leave them? To live on the streets? How is that going to prevent them from falling back into a life of crime?

It's the same with workplaces that refuse to hire someone with a criminal record. If legal jobs won't hire someone, how do you expect them to make a living? Everyone already claims they don't want strong social programs like welfare, food stamps, and public housing. But these are the types of things that force people into them or into a life of crime.

Some people might believe this ....

About 68 percent of 405,000 prisoners released in 30 states in 2005 were arrested for a new crime within three years of their release from prison, and 77 percent were arrested within five years, according to a report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) released Tuesday

Maybe this is why landlords and employers look close at criminal records.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
When you're convicted of a crime, you have to "make it up" to society. That may be through fines, community service, imprisonment, or other measures. But once you've paid your debt to society, you should be treated like a normal citizen. So in short, I agree with this policy.

So why isn't Obama pushing for voting rights and gun ownership rights of prior felons?

a reply to: xuenchen

A criminal record isn't a crystal ball though, maybe those people turned back to crime because after paying their dues to society they were still getting punished for their crime ?

If they're constantly being judged as criminals and prevented from getting jobs and getting a home is it any wonder they reoffend ?

a reply to: xuenchen

It's a self fulfilling cycle. If someone is convicted of committing a crime, legal jobs won't hire them. But that person still will have debts and obligations. So if they can't get a legal job, how do you expect them to meet their financial obligations or pay their bills? It's not like credit card companies will dismiss their debts. And when they got imprisoned, it's not like their former landlord let them keep their stuff in their apartment or home for free while they were imprisoned.

So the person comes out of jail with all kinds of legal bills, as well as any financial obligations they had before being arrested. This can include child support, student loans, credit card bills, mortgages, car notes, etc. And depending on how long they've been in jail, a lot of their stuff has been repossessed and the person will probably have their credit screwed up. Not to mention possible divorces and more.

And the person still has to find a place to sleep and a way to eat. So if no one will hire them, what do you expect will happen to them? Not to mention, many people get out of jail early for work release. If they can't keep a job in that time period, it may violate their parole and send them back to jail.

If they have paid their debt to society, they are no longer criminals.

Apparently, if the crime was drug distribution,
or manufacturing the landlord can legally refuse to rent based on that.

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. dailycaller.com...

a reply to: DBCowboy

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

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).

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?