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 ...
The white guy got here first....
(can’t see that working)
Yeah, when the white guy gets there first it's rigged dontcha know!
My property. My decision.
Oh, that first weirdo? No, I decided to take the apartment off the market that day. Yeah, it was a coincidence I decided to put it back on the market when that nice employed couple with great references dropped by. Prove it didn’t happen that way.
The ulterior motive is to destroy the incentive for owners to rent property, and to put Government in charge of housing, with Council Estates, like they have in Britain.
Democrats and socialists (but I repeat myself) want the freedom of association in this country to be destroyed. Destroy that, and it’s just a hop and a skip to herding people in camps by skin color and religion. Don’t think they wouldn’t love to do it.
"Proof" is in the eye of the beholder.In Seattle,and many other places,you wouldn't have a prayer.
They ask for decent credit, first and last months rent, no history of evictions.
You would be surprised how often the last requirement is the sticking point.
They’ll just sue the landlords based on outcomes (as the government did with Wall Street firms with women under-represented at the highest levels); there was no proof of discrimination, just an unequal outcome that had to be punished with steep fines and a bunch of high-paying fake jobs for women...
To really understand just how STUPID this new law is in Seattle, one would have to understand the HOUSING SHORTAGE that exists in Seattle because of all the building restrictions that have been in place for a very long time due to "environmental" reasons in large swaths of Seattle and the surrounding area.
"First come" is less about discrimination and more about RENT CONTROL in Seattle. It will prevent bidding wars for rental properties in/around Seattle, enable a whole lesser class of "renters" and fundamentally damage the property rights not just of landlords, but property owners overall.
That which can be done to a landlord can also be done to a property owner who is NOT a landlord.
I’m not surprised; I work with gibsmedats (forced into the workplace when their golden-ticket welfare bastards “aged out” of providing the life of leisure) who can’t get anything in their own names because they’ve stiffed so many people in the past (especially landlords)...
“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-—
Even empty nesters?
Many people with lots of money want to rent because they are sick and tired of ownership and want to travel.
I personally know 2 couples that did this.
.
We were stationed in the beautiful hell-hole for 3 years.
The schools were an absolute nightmare. Our son was in 5th grade when we received a letter that they would learn about AIDS. If we wanted to opt him out of this seminar, we had to attend a special meeting at the school. We kept him home for 2 days. We don’t conform.
Those people are dangerous.
Yes, good point.
Speaking of parties, by the same logic when you hold a party you should issue a public invitation and accept the first n people who RSVP.
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.