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

a reply to: Edumakated

Not everyone with a record is a criminal.

In fact if society was slightly more forgiving like in Europe we might have far less criminals.

originally posted by: Metallicus
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.

How can anyone in government understand bat when they've never owned a business?

Another reason to elect Trump.

a reply to: onequestion

Not everyone with a record is a criminal. In fact if society was slightly more forgiving like in Europe we might have far less criminals.

Interesting. You seem to agree with the President, in spirit.

a reply to: Phage

It's true.

You have to give people opportunities or your creating a survival situation and people will do anything in that situation including commit another crime.

Clearly, very clearly, our draconian view on how we handle criminals has and currently still is not working and continuing to become more draconian is not the answer.

It's time to try something else.

a reply to: onequestion

We've got the highest incarceration rate in the world. I would venture that a good percentage are of a non-violent sort.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Edumakated

Not everyone with a record is a criminal.

In fact if society was slightly more forgiving like in Europe we might have far less criminals.

I don't disagree... However, unless HUD is going to some how make landlords not liable, I can't see who they can say we shouldn't discriminate with a straight face. For example:

If I rent to someone who was convicted of sexual assault and that person then decides to assault a female tenant, then I could be held liable. Any two bit attorney is going to say I was negligent because I ignored this person's prior record.

life is not fair and some people may be truly rehabilitated or given up that life. The problem is are you willing to take the chance?

I am not convinced this is a huge issue though except for the most hardened criminals.

originally posted by: Edumakated
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.

Either you believe in prison being rehabilitative, in which case you have no reason to discriminate against them, or you say it isn't at which point they were wrongfully imprisoned .

a reply to: JustAnObservation

If that's the case, then what about franchises like McDonalds? They have owners. so I guess they should do background checks on all of their customers too?

originally posted by: burntheships

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.

No, that one wouldn't make sense. Only a foolish drug dealer would bring all of those customers to their home.

1. They'd make their home an easy target for robberies.

2. They'd get busted the very first time someone called the police for suspicious activity. Just think about how many people get police called on them just for having a house party. I've had police called on me for far less and I don't do house parties or anything illegal.

That's literally why drug dealers use abandoned properties (your stereotypical "crack houses"), different locations in the actual streets (corners, alleys, etc), meet clients in predetermined places, or stash their "property" at someone else's house (usually for a big fee). No professional in the underground is going to bring traffic to a place that's in their name and I can guarantee you a felon will know this.

a reply to: Edumakated

I am not convinced this is a huge issue though except for the most hardened criminals.

You seem to have missed the point.
The issue is that a criminal record may be used to justify discrimination based on color.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Edumakated

I am not convinced this is a huge issue though except for the most hardened criminals.

You seem to have missed the point.
The issue is that a criminal record may be used to justify discrimination based on color.

No, I fully get the point. HUD is trying to claim that since blacks are more likely to have criminal records that landlords screening out those with criminal records is a form of racial discrimination.

This is just another spin on the "disparate impact" BS where if stats show that minorities are not doing as well even if no intentional racial discrimination is present, it is still racism. For example, blacks on average have lower FICO scores than whites. Even though FICO scoring is completely anonymous (you either paid your bill or you didn't). FICO scores therefore are racist.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

McDonalds is a business open to the public, apartments and homes are private dwellings, I think there is a slight difference here.

Though, if McDonalds decided to refuse to serve known rapists and murderers, or people who have stolen from their business or have been caught vandalizing it, etc, I wouldn't really complain nor think it is wrong to do so.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: JustAnObservation

If that's the case, then what about franchises like McDonalds? They have owners. so I guess they should do background checks on all of their customers too?

originally posted by: burntheships

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.

No, that one wouldn't make sense. Only a foolish drug dealer would bring all of those customers to their home.

1. They'd make their home an easy target for robberies.

2. They'd get busted the very first time someone called the police for suspicious activity. Just think about how many people get police called on them just for having a house party. I've had police called on me for far less and I don't do house parties or anything illegal.

That's literally why drug dealers use abandoned properties (your stereotypical "crack houses"), different locations in the actual streets (corners, alleys, etc), meet clients in predetermined places, or stash their "property" at someone else's house (usually for a big fee). No professional in the underground is going to bring traffic to a place that's in their name and I can guarantee you a felon will know this.

Your comparison makes no sense. McDonald's has no need to screen customers. However, McDonald's does screen employees for the very same reason a landlord would. LIABILITY. If said McDonald's owner hires an ex-con and the employee decides to assault an employee or customer, then the owner is liable because attorneys will argue the owner was negligent.

By the logic of some of you, I guess we should allow folks with DUI convictions to drive school buses. I mean they served their time right? Or maybe we should allow someone convicted of identity theft to work at your mortgage company so they can see all your personal and financial info. Let bygones, be bygones. So what if your kid's kindergarten teacher is a convicted Chom / Pedo. I mean he was just going through a phase and no longer likes five year olds.

Good grief....

a reply to: Edumakated

HUD is trying to claim that since blacks are more likely to have criminal records that landlords screening out those with criminal records is a form of racial discrimination.

Not exactly.

Selective use of criminal history as a pretext for unequal treatment of individuals based on race, national origin, or other protected characteristics violates the Act.

portal.hud.gov...

a reply to: Edumakated

What are you going to do build a society where no one makes mistakes?

Do me a favor and give us a run down of your life so we can scrutinize you and you'll probably lose your job and your family and house and everything.

Start when your 18, I'd be surprised if there wasn't a mistake or two in there.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Edumakated
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.

Either you believe in prison being rehabilitative, in which case you have no reason to discriminate against them, or you say it isn't at which point they were wrongfully imprisoned .

Great point.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: onequestion

We've got the highest incarceration rate in the world. I would venture that a good percentage are of a non-violent sort.

They are and most of the violence is gang related.

Then of course you have the occasional moron like me who got into a bar fight when they shouldn't have and paid for it dearly.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Edumakated

HUD is trying to claim that since blacks are more likely to have criminal records that landlords screening out those with criminal records is a form of racial discrimination.

Not exactly.

Selective use of criminal history as a pretext for unequal treatment of individuals based on race, national origin, or other protected characteristics violates the Act.

portal.hud.gov...

Yes, exactly as I said... From the HUD memo.

Across the United States, African Americans and Hispanics are arrested, convicted and incarcerated at rates disproportionate to their share of the general population.8 Consequently, criminal records-based barriers to housing are likely to have a disproportionate impact on minority home seekers. While having a criminal record is not a protected characteristic under the Fair Housing Act, criminal history-based restrictions on housing opportunities violate the Act if, without justification, their burden falls more often on renters or other housing market participants of one race or national origin over another (i.e., discriminatory effects liability). 9

In layman terms, they are claiming disparate impact even though there may not be any intent to discriminate against a protected class. So if you are not renting to those with criminal records and that means most of the people you turn down are black, then you are being racist.

originally posted by: JustAnObservation
a reply to: enlightenedservant

McDonalds is a business open to the public, apartments and homes are private dwellings, I think there is a slight difference here.

Though, if McDonalds decided to refuse to serve known rapists and murderers, or people who have stolen from their business or have been caught vandalizing it, etc, I wouldn't really complain nor think it is wrong to do so.

Sorry, I was being facetious.

I keep noticing that the rest of of my arguments are getting ignored. Some of you won't address the fact that refusing to let convicted criminals get legal jobs or have legal housing will only push them back into a life of crime. Every time that's brought up, the topic gets changed.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: JustAnObservation
a reply to: enlightenedservant

McDonalds is a business open to the public, apartments and homes are private dwellings, I think there is a slight difference here.

Though, if McDonalds decided to refuse to serve known rapists and murderers, or people who have stolen from their business or have been caught vandalizing it, etc, I wouldn't really complain nor think it is wrong to do so.

Sorry, I was being facetious.

I keep noticing that the rest of of my arguments are getting ignored. Some of you won't address the fact that refusing to let convicted criminals get legal jobs or have legal housing will only push them back into a life of crime. Every time that's brought up, the topic gets changed.

It is a sticky issue. I don't necessarily disagree with you that it creates a problem. I really don't know what the answer is, but I know it isn't ignoring people's past criminal records.

a reply to: Edumakated

So if you are not renting to those with criminal records and that means most of the people you turn down are black, then you are being racist.

No. From your quote:

While having a criminal record is not a protected characteristic under the Fair Housing Act, criminal history-based restrictions on housing opportunities violate the Act if, without justification, their burden falls more often on renters or other housing market participants of one race or national origin over another(i.e., discriminatory effects liability). 9

Once again:

Selective use of criminal history as a pretext for unequal treatment of individuals based on race, national origin, or other protected characteristics violates the Act.

If you rent to a white convicted coke dealer and not a black one, you have a problem.