Posted on 03/24/2017 9:47:42 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
A lawsuit in Seattle pits some fundamental rights against each other — it’s civil rights that ban discrimination, and property rights that allow owners to decide what to do with their homes and land.
The issue is with a new law that requires landlords to rent to tenants on a “first come, first served” basis. The goal is to make sure all renters are treated equally.
But the landlords who are suing say the program is a bureaucratic nightmare and unconstitutional.
Critics say it’s all about the survival of the fastest, but supporters say it levels the playing field for renters.
The law does exempt mother-in-law units and backyard cottages. The rule is in effect now but will not be enforced until July.
If a landlord is caught violating the new rules, they could receive hefty fines, up to $11,000 for a first violation and about $27,000 for the second.
Blevins, the attorney, says the lawsuit could take a year and half before a judge makes a final ruling.
(Excerpt) Read more at q13fox.com ...
Are all renters equal?
I’m so happy I do not live in a liberal paradise.
They are not equal.
Meaning, it allows those with a lousy credit history and questionable (at best) character to compete with qualified renters.
Property rights at or near the top of the list of things leftists hate most.
To level the playing field,
all would-be renters should
have to rent the first place
they can afford.
Are all renters equal?
More equal than the landlords, apparently.
A lawsuit in Seattle pits some fundamental rights against each other — it’s civil rights that ban discrimination, and property rights that allow owners to decide what to do with their homes and land.
There is no fundamental civil right that bans discrimination.
Discrimination in government action is banned under the requirement for equal treatment under the law. Private parties should and do discriminate for a number of reasons all the time. Requiring non-discrimination of private parties destroys freedom of association and private property rights.
So Seattle, how’s that sanctuary city chit working out for ya?
Yes...that’s what the commies who vote for the commies think. Wonder if they ever considered sleeping under the freeway for their convictions!
Shhhhh! Not so loud! People might start getting suspicious about the motives for this law.
Am I right, Statue of Lenin standing in Pioneer Square? Up high!
So if the first would-be renter fails to pay or damages the property, the govt will pay, right? They picked the person.
I once saw a Mad magazine cartoon about this very thing.
A man is talking to another ( out of the panel ) saying “sorry, we can’t rent you this house.” His wife replies “honey we can’t discriminate against person just because of the color of his skin.” He replies “shut up. This guy is definitely nuts.” Panel shows both men, the prospective renter with an upside down bucket on his head that has Purple Paint printed on it
Nope, no damn way first come first served in my rentals.
What you’re going to see is a whole lot of underground services popping up that will have potential pre-screened good renters signed up before the listing takes place. Then select landlords willing to give a little kickback will contact them announcing the availability before it even gets listed a backroom deal can be made before it’s announced. That way first come, first served by date and timestamp will be upheld if questioned by some ditch digging loser who wants to rent a McMansion with his section 8 allowance.
Normal discrimination law dictates who you cannot refuse to rent to, this dictates who you must rent to.
Thankfully, I do not live in Seattle, but as a small-time landlord (~10 units) I can give two examples in real-life of perfectly legitimate reasons why I discriminate against some prospective tenants.
1, Our building is near a large employer, and every vacancy we have there is at least one application from employees of this company. Sometimes there are several. I have a rule that no more than 3 of our units can be occupied by employees of this company.
Discrimination, yes. But every financial advisor in the world preaches diversification of assets. If this company were to have a bad quarter, or year, there might be layoffs. If I lost 3 renters all at the same time that would be a disaster for me. So, I require diversity of employment for tenants.
2. If a prospective tenant has too HIGH an income I will not take them.
Why? Experience shows that high-income tenants really want to own a house, and can qualify for one. They are not going to be long-term tenants. Every time someone moves out and I have to clean, re-paint, and re-rent I lose at least one month’s rent and maybe two.
In both cases, I am not discriminating against any protected class. I am very legitimately protecting my own business interests.
I look for long-term, stable tenants with no drug or alcohol issues.
Next up in libtard land: “first come first served” laws for job applicants.
Yes, you're right. This is what happens in hiring practices to skirt fair hiring. Management will have pre-selected people lined up for a job, quickly open it and shut the door, only allowing the pre-selected people to "interview" and be hired. Why shouldn't the same happen in rentals? Backroom deals will be the norm, to allow a "first-come, first served" pre-selected renter in. Seattle is nuts.
Seattle is the seat of communism here in USSR-WA.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.